Instructions for reviewers/editors

Role of reviewers

Thank you for volunteering to review and/or edit the extended abstracts submitted to the Proceedings for the TDWG conference. Even if you have participated in this reviewing process before, please read through these instructions carefully. To help you understand the ARPHA workflow from the author’s point of view, please also review the 2026 Instructions for BISS abstract submission.

Responsibilities

Usually, the symposium organisers are also the extended abstract reviewers/editors. As a symposium organiser, you bring subject matter expertise and knowledge of the field. Although you are welcome to provide editorial input, such as flagging spelling or grammar errors, you do not have to do that task. What we ask you to bring forward is your knowledge of the topic, literature and future developments.

It is your responsibility as reviewers/editors to ensure the acceptance of only high- quality, well-written abstracts that will act as a record of the symposium. We also strive to maintain the good reputation of our organizations, the conference, and this journal.

Your efforts will be credited as an editor of any collection on which you work.

If you feel unable to do this task, or would like additional guidance or help, please contact the volume editors at editor@tdwg.org.

Process

Reviews will be conducted in Pensoft’s ARPHA writing platform for publication in the journal Biodiversity Information Science and Standards (BISS) as Proceedings of the conference each year. Eligibility criteria apply for publication of an extended abstract. Volume editors will check that each abstract qualifies before sending into the editing pipeline.

The ARPHA platform uses Track Changes to allow reviewers to make suggested changes to author’s text and Comments to ask questions and make suggestions about content or wording. Collection editors (usually the symposium organisers) use flags to indicate status and actions to be taken regarding the abstract but will not send feedback to (communicate directly with) authors in ARPHA. Only volume editors will send feedback to authors.

There is no separate narrative review; all comments/questions/changes will appear directly on the abstract. Please be aware that the authors will have access to all comments you make. We ask you to be mindful of the TDWG Code of Conduct.

Notification to review

If you have elected to participate in this process, you will be automatically notified of newly submitted abstracts via email from awt@pensoft.net . Be sure to whitelist this sender in your email client, if your organisation’s email settings allow it. Alternatively, abstracts to be reviewed will show up in your ARPHA dashboard as “in pre-submission review.”

Reviewer roles

The terms “reviewer” and “editor” may be used interchangeably in these instructions. We review for content (e.g., structure, logic, clarity, context) but edit for technical aspects (e.g., spelling, grammar, (journal-specific) style). The lines blur between the roles, hence the often interchangeable use here. Pensoft also has its own term “technical editor” for these roles.

Session/collection reviewers

Session or collection reviewers are usually also the organisers of the symposium but may also be members of the Program Committee. At least two people will review each abstract, one addressing content and one looking at language.

Remember that you are reviewing an extended version of an abstract that has already been accepted for presentation at the TDWG conference for that year. You are not reviewing for acceptance into the conference; you are reviewing the abstract to ensure that it is a sound piece of academic writing.

The task of the session reviewer is to:

Use their subject matter expertise to seek clarification about statements or assertions made in the abstract; suggest or request evidence or references that could be cited; provide feedback about whether the figures and tables support the text of the abstract well.

To do that the reviewer will:

Suggest changes to wording using ARPHA’s Track Changes or Comment features.
- Using these tools on the abstract itself is a way that we can track what has been suggested and its resolution by authors.
- If you have a general question or comment, highlight a small piece of text and attach a comment to it
- Use Track Changes to correct grammar, spelling, or style. The author can then accept or reject these changes as appropriate.
Use flags in ARPHA to mark editing/reviewing progress
DO NOT use the Send feedback button despite what the email from Pensoft may indicate.
Address reviewing tasks promptly to enable maximum time and flexibility for dealing with authors.

Volume editors

The TDWG Executive endorses one or more people to be the volume editors for the Proceedings each year. This person or people take an overall view of all abstracts submitted, tracks progress of abstracts through review and publication, and provides editorial corrections. The Volume Editor/s will have a specialist knowledge and experience in some area of biodiversity science and standards but cannot be expected to have an encyclopedic knowledge about all topics! Hence the need for subject matter expertise provided by the Session/collection reviewers.

Provide a link to the abstract tracking spreadsheet (ATS) to all session editors for tracking progress of the review.
Are responsible for communicating with authors (via Send feedback button) about required revisions (after the abstract has been flagged with revise).
Have access to all abstracts in the volume, should questions arise.
Work with session editors to ensure that deadlines are met.
Provide feedback in ATS to session editors on the registration status of presenters.
Responsible for final review and approval for submission of all abstracts.
May be reached at any time via editor@tdwg.org; please cite ARPHA (or BISS) ID in the subject line of all communications.

Understanding flags

ARPHA provides flags to editors to track the progress of an abstract during the review process. Editors have access to setting flags only when they have control over the abstract in the “in pre-submission review” stage. Be sure you understand the difference between using flags (a series of checkboxes) and clicking buttons with similarly sounding names (and greater consequences if used in error). Flags that have been set by reviewers appear with each listed abstract on your ARPHA dashboard (under Collection editor), but authors cannot see these flags.

**Editorial review status flags**

Flags should be set in APRHA and also copied to the Abstract tracking spreadsheet. If both flags are set in ARPHA, this should be scored as both on ATS.

Language reviewed - Abstracts are written in English, but what flavor? British or American or Canadian or …? Whatever the flavor, the style, grammar, and spelling should be consistent (e.g., organisation OR organization NOT both) and above all, be comprehensible (no unexplained slang, unexpanded acronyms, or jargon) by general readers. If the language review is extensive and is a barrier to assessing content, notify the editor@tdwg.org about sending feedback to authors before the content is reviewed.
Content reviewed - Authors should provide needed context and a coherent flow of information in their abstract. Please help authors focus their ideas, provide evidence in the form of literature citations or data to support their assertions, and use figures and tables constructively. Ensure that the extended abstract still fits the topic of the session in which it is accepted and ensure that abstracts are readable by a general (non-specialized) audience.

Editorial review action flags

Flags should be set in APRHA and also copied to the Abstract tracking spreadsheet.

Revise - most commonly used flag once the reviews are complete. Use this flag to indicate that the authors need to address changes suggested or comments made.
Flag can be set by either Session editors doing content review or Volume editors. This flag signals to the Volume editors that they should now Send feedback to authors; may be an iterative process.
Approve - use this flag to indicate that all tracked changes have been attended to by the authors and all comments addressed. When ready to flag as Approve the Validation only shows the number of characters and no other issues.
Flag can be set by either the Session editor or Volume editors. This will signal to the Volume editors that the abstract is ready to be finalized for publication.
Move - If the abstract is submitted to the wrong session (collection). This can take place at any time before Volume editors approve the abstract for submission (i.e., to be published).
Reject - abstract is unable to be brought to the standard of publication in the journal, despite having been accepted for presentation at the conference.
Remove - reserved for abstracts that are duplicate or withdrawn for whatever reason.

Currently unused flags

Accept with revisions - used in a different workflow

Workflow

Editorial review process

Please begin the editorial review process as soon as an abstract is submitted for review. You should receive an email from awt@pensoft.net when an abstract has been assigned to you for review. Alternatively, the Collection editor tab in your ARPHA dashboard (when logged in) will show abstracts ready to be reviewed (they will be marked “in pre-submission review”).

Keep in mind that the same notification is sent to all technical editors, and ARPHA does not allow simultaneous editing of a document. Only one person can work on an abstract at a time. If you are not actively working on a manuscript, please close the window to give others a chance to contribute. Note: the dashboard may give misleading indications that someone is editing the manuscript. You can verify if this is true by clicking on the manuscript title.

Abstracts need to be reviewed and flagged both for Language and for Content before authors are notified by the volume editors about revisions and clarifications needed/requested by the reviewers. An exception may be made if the language review shows the need for extensive revisions and is a barrier to assessing content (contact the editor@tdwg.org if you are in this situation).

Session editors should NEVER use the Send Feedback button. Communications with authors are limited to Volume editors.

The review

Conflicts of interest

No conflict of interest

Simply working at the same institution, in a different department is not deemed a conflict of interest.
Knowing the author is not a conflict of interest…

*unless* you feel that you have a personal reason (disclosed or not) why you would say that you could not provide a fair and impartial review.

Genuine conflicts of interest include where you:

are a co-author on the paper
Were asked to review the abstract and comment on it prior to submission (e.g. if the author is your student and asked you to review their abstract)
Are in a direct line management pathway with the author – e.g. you are either their manager, or they are your manager, which could lead to a claim of bias (either positive or negative).

Grey areas are:

Where you are in the same team, workgroup or unit. It comes down to whether you think you are able or not to provide a fair and impartial review. That is, you would feel uncomfortable rating the work of the author who is your peer? Do you feel that you could or could not give them criticism (even constructive)?

If you prefer to declare a conflict of interest, the reason for it does not have to be stated. Please notify the Volume editors immediately at editor@tdwg.org so that another reviewer may be assigned.

Review for content

Reviewing for content consists of examining the structure, logic, clarity, and context of the written text and any additional materials (i.e., links, figures, tables, supplementary materials) provided by the author. In addition, please look for

Improperly embedded or missing URLs (used to add context for the reader)
Missing references to concepts or existing standards (e.g., TDWG standards)
Incorrect or incomplete citation of the references (e.g., reference cited in text does not match reference from list; data referenced without an access date)
Non-expansion of acronyms at first use

Upon completion of the content review

Flag abstract as reviewed for Content.
Click the Validate check (button).
- If it shows only the number of characters, check the Approve flag (only worry about the number of characters if it does not validate).
- If it shows more than the number of characters, check Revise
Check any additional necessary editorial action flag(s).
DO NOT use the send feedback button for any reason.
Enter review status in the ATS

Review for language

The process of reviewing for language includes verifying spelling, grammar, consistency of style, and comprehensibility (is it written in a way to be understandable by a general audience?). Please also be aware of the following most frequent issues of non-compliance with the journal’s standards:

Missing or inconsistent authors’ affiliations
Non-expansion of acronyms at first use (see new policy for acronyms and abbreviations)
Wording issues resulting from translation or AI-assisted content construction
Titles should be in title case (see Title Case Converter and choose MLA for style)
Missing Keywords
Keywords not separated by commas and space; words repeated from the title; or capitalization of non-proper nouns
Missing Presented at metadata (should be filled in with `<conference title>` and only that)
Presenter’s name(s) should match the format of one of the authors (no title or other affiliation information, just the name;)

Upon completion of the language review,

Flag abstract as reviewed for “Language.”
Click the Validate check (button).
- If it shows only the number of characters, check the Approve flag (only worry about the number of characters if it does not validate).
- If it shows more than the number of characters, check “Revise”
Check any additional necessary editorial action flag(s).
DO NOT use the send feedback button for any reason.
Enter review status in the ATS

Next steps

Once the above reviews are completed and the editorial action(s) are recommended, the Volume editors conduct their own reviews and will be the ones to communicate with authors either to recommend revisions (may be an iterative process) or to approve the abstract for publication.

The status of the abstract changes with each decision and Session editors will receive notifications about submission of revised abstracts (message is indistinguishable from “new”) as well as when abstracts are approved for publication and published. It is not required that you re-review any abstract but it is recommended if extensive changes were requested, particularly to content. Otherwise, the Volume editors will deal with revised abstracts (if they require a second opinion, they will request it of you).

Revision history

Confused about who has reviewed or touched an abstract? Access the Revision history from your dashboard for the abstract or use the counterclockwise icon in the top ribbon of the ARPHA writing tool. See also Compare Manuscript Versions.

Abstract status

You should be able to see all abstracts that have been submitted to your collection in ARPHA’s Collection editor view (you will need to be logged in). On the right-hand side in the dashboard, you can see the status of the abstract, the flags that have been set for it, the number of times it has been sent out for revisions, and the subcollection (i.e., “Part of” collection; these are equivalent to our sessions) to which it was submitted. Some of you may be editors of more than one collection. Here is a short explanation of the document statuses:

Draft

The abstract has not yet been submitted by the authors OR it has been returned to the authors for revision via the Send Feedback button. Editors will have read-only access at this time. What editors view from this angle may not be a true reflection of edits you made or that the author will see.

In pre-submission review

You will receive an email notification from awt@pensoft.net every time an author (re)submits an abstract for review. While this email states “Please review it and either approve it or submit your feedback to the authors”, only volume editors should send feedback to authors. It is now the responsibility of Session editors to review the abstract and mark its progress through flags. While an abstract is in pre-submission review, authors may see your comments, but they will not have access to the manuscript until it is returned to them in the Send Feedback step.

Approved for submission

Only designated editors at editor@tdwg.org will have access to the Approve button (this is not the flag). Once the button is pushed, it will be up to authors to finalize the abstract submission process. See the instructions for abstract submission for a description and various places where authors may run into trouble (including Validation unsuccessful and Incomplete submission).

Incomplete submission

This is abstract purgatory. The abstract was approved for submission and the author began to finalize it but did not finish. See instructions to authors.

In layout

The author has completed the final submission process, a BISS ID has been assigned, and the abstract is awaiting publication.

Published

A DOI has been implemented and the abstract is available to the world. Abstracts cannot be withdrawn at this point. Any changes to presenter or placement are non-trivial.

Rejected

Only abstracts that are ineligible for submission or do not reach journal standards, will be rejected. Only selected volume editors have access to the button for rejecting an abstract, although any editor may flag an abstract for rejection.

Modes of communicating with authors

Remember to always be constructive and civil in any communications with authors. If there are issues you cannot resolve, please contact editor@tdwg.org.

Session editors should use the Comments feature in ARPHA during the review process to ask questions or make observations related to the abstract. Author responses may be seen once an abstract is re-submitted for review. Access resolved comments using the checkbox in the upper right of the ARPHA window, above where the comments would be visible.
A volume editor uses the Send Feedback button - changes status of abstract to draft and returns control to authors. No editors will see a true reflection of the editorial changes they have made/suggested when the abstract status is draft, i.e., do not panic, your changes are there.
Email Co-authors button - does not change status of the abstract; may be used at any time while the abstract is in ARPHA. Recipients do not see who else may have received the same email and the person sending the email does not get a copy. Not recommended for use if you think authors are not receiving/seeing emails from pensoft.net.
Your institutional email (please cc editor@tdwg.org) - always reference the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) manuscript identifier (5-digit ID number) in the subject line (found in the URL of abstracts, communications from Pensoft, and in the list of abstracts under collection editor on your ARPHA dashboard). This is the preferred method to use as a follow-up to ARPHA notifications or for seeking a quick resolution to questions without using Send feedback and returning the abstract to author control (particularly when under a short deadline).

Communications from Pensoft and ARPHA

Emails originating from “pensoft.net” are often interpreted by overzealous email systems as potential spam. Please whitelist or otherwise train your email system to recognize these vital communications. You will receive notifications (from awt@pensoft.net) for each abstract in ARPHA for which you are an editor, every time there is a change of status for that abstract. While these automatically generated emails indicate that you should send feedback to the author, resist the temptation. If you share/forward the email, please remove links first. You will not be able to tell who else may have received the same notification in auto-generated emails. Emails will reference the collection to which the abstract was submitted in both the subject line and in the body of the email, as well as the journal name (body only).

Update your profile

Please create or update your profile in Pensoft. Make sure that you have only one email address registered.

For additional help

Email editor@tdwg.org with issues about content and procedure.
Check online help (marked as Tips in ARPHA).
Contact Pensoft’s technical staff by clicking “Helpdesk” on the top navigation bar if you need additional technical assistance.
If you have suggestions for how the workflow can be improved, please send them to editor@tdwg.org.
Remember to ALWAYS include an ARPHA or BISS identifier in the subject line of all communications.

On this page