About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Limnetica publishes original research on the ecology of inland waters. The scope includes publishing limnetic ecology of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, coastal lagoons, wetlands, biogeochemistry, paleolimnology, development methodologies, taxonomy, biogeography, and all aspects of continental aquatic ecology theoretical and applied as management and conservation, impact assessment, ecotoxicology and pollution. Therefore Limnetica accepted articles for publication presenting scientific advances the state of knowledge, technological development and the resulting innovative practical applications in the fields of interest of the journal.

Peer Review Process

PhD or Masters students who act as corresponding authors for a manuscript submitted to Limnetica can apply for Fast-track review: a first decision, including a round of peer review, will be given as soon as possible, surely within four weeks. To opt for Fast track review, the author must add a letter from his/her supervisor certifying your status as Masters or PhD student. This is mandatory.

All the manuscripts submitted to Limentica are subject to peer review. Upon submission, articles will be screened to ensure that they are complete, meet the instructions for manuscript preparation, and are accompanied by a cover letter with all of the requested information. Once a submission passes this quality-control screening, manuscripts will be assigned to an Associate Editor, who will screen the article for appropriate scope and content and quality of preparation. Manuscripts that are inappropriate for Limnetica in terms of scope or topic or that are poorly prepared may be rejected without further review. Manuscripts that meet these initial tests will be sent for peer review, usually by two referees although more can be assigned at the discretion of the Associate Editor.

Associate Editors will solicit reviews from referees chosen on the basis of expertise, availability, and willingness to conduct a review. Authors are encouraged to suggest appropriate referees, but Associate Editors are not obligated to choose referees suggested by authors. Authors also may identify referees who should not be asked to review their manuscript. Referees will be asked to complete their reviews within four weeks when possible. After the desired number of reviews has been received, Associate Editors will make an initial decision regarding whether to reject a manuscript, reject a manuscript with an invitation for extensive revision and resubmission as a new manuscript, or recommend the manuscript for revision and consideration for acceptance. In most cases, Associate Editors will provide their own critique and analysis of the manuscript. As part of this process, they will provide guidance to authors regarding how to respond to referee comments and suggestions (e.g., rectifying conflicting requests or advice) during revision.

Manuscripts recommended for revision will be returned to the authors. The expected turn-around period for revisions is four months or less. Authors may request extensions if there are extenuating circumstances, but prolonged delays may result in rejection or another round of reviews in light of new developments in the field. Associate Editors will check all revisions carefully to ensure that all referee comments have been addressed. Authors are encouraged to submit a detailed matrix with their revision showing how each reviewer comment has been addressed. In some cases, Associate Editors might request a new round of reviews, e.g., if the revisions have substantially altered the content or revealed new problems. Associate Editors also might request further revisions before making a final recommendation to the Editor.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate free access to its content under the principle that making research freely available to the public, which promotes a greater global exchange of knowledge.