Camera Traps, Drones and Passive Acoustic Monitoring: Wildlife studies using recording devices to record still/video images and/or audio have the potential to capture human subjects. This has implications for privacy, and — in the event that illegal acts are captured — a duty on the part of the researcher to report them. There might also be issues of personal safety in the latter case. See https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12033 and https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.374 for more information.
Ideally, this should have been considered by the authors and their ethics committee before the study was approved but we understand that this is not currently a widespread practice. While the field is reaching a consensus on this matter, we ask authors who are reporting data from such studies to explain how the ethical approval/field permit they obtained relate to these issues, or explain why this was not considered necessary.
Where the study uses mobile platforms such as uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs/drones) these must have been operated in accordance with all applicable regulations.
This policy is likely to adapt as the field develops.
PeerJ Chemistry journals is committed to improving scholarly communications and as part of this commitment, authors must make materials, code, data, and associated protocols available at the time of submission for peer review and publication. The preferred way to meet this requirement is to publicly deposit as noted below. Cases of non-compliance will be investigated by PeerJ Chemistry journals which reserves the right to act on the results of the investigation.
Any potential restrictions on data, code or materials (for example: proprietary data, material limitations, or information relating to human subjects), including how other researchers might attempt replication without this data, must be disclosed at the time of submission. PeerJ Chemistry journals reserve the right to refuse consideration of such articles.
Where data can only be made available with restrictions, you must provide clear instructions on how these may be accessed. Authors may not act as sole contacts for data access so these data must be submitted to a suitable third party such as a data protection or ethics committee at your institution.
We strongly recommend (and in some cases require) that authors adhere to the reporting standards which have been adopted by their field (or which apply to their study design).
All statistical results should be reported in full, including the test that was performed, the reason for choosing that test, the corresponding test statistic, sample size, degrees of freedom, the exact p-value expressed up to 2 decimal spaces unless 'p<0.001' or confidence interval, and effect sizes. Where multiple testing is performed, suitable corrections must be made.
Do not report inferential statistics such as p values or confidence intervals for known quantities such as baseline measurements. The spread of the data can be indicated by descriptive statistics such as standard deviation, or quantiles and ranges.
Where appropriate, we recommend that you overlay bar graphs with scatter plots showing individual data points, or use another method to show the distribution of the data, such as boxplots, violin plots, etc.
PeerJ journals consider timely and well-balanced literature reviews of fields with broad cross-disciplinary interest within the journal's scope. While we do not impose a hard limit, we recommend a maximum of 8,000-12,000 words in order to keep the review focused. The review should include a rationale for why it is needed, describe who it is intended for, and include a description of the procedures used to ensure that it is comprehensive and unbiased (for example, the search strategies that were employed). Gaps in the literature, future avenues of research and opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaborations should be clearly identified. Unbalanced reviews that are performed with the intention of supporting a particular interpretation or point of view will not be considered.
Since, by their nature, literature reviews rely heavily on the published work of others, it is especially important to avoid inadvertent plagiarism by copying and pasting sections of text from the original source. In addition, it is very important, when quoting or paraphrasing, to correctly acknowledge your sources.
We recommend that your review is structured following the guidelines for Literature Review Articles in standard sections.
PeerJ Chemistry journals consider fully validated methodological papers. The article should include a rationale for why it is needed, describe who it is intended for, and include a description of the procedures used to ensure it is comprehensive and reliable. Current limitations of methodologies in the literature should be clearly identified. We recommend that your article is structured following the guidelines for Method Development Articles in standard sections.
In general, it is expected that work involving animal experiments will be submitted to PeerJ - the Journal of Life and Environmental Science, but if the intended audience is the chemistry community and the animal experiments are a minor part of the overall work then it will be considered for publication in PeerJ Chemistry journals, so long as it complies with the usual ethical requirements.
In general, it is expected that work involving human subjects will be submitted to PeerJ - the Journal of Life and Environmental Science, but if the intended audience is the chemistry community and the human experiments are a minor part of the overall work then it will be considered for publication in PeerJ Chemistry journals, so long as it complies with the usual ethical requirements.
These policies are made available under the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license and can be copied for reuse with attribution.