Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Nature of Peer Review
The Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences follow singlye blind peer review process which means reviewers are aware of authors, however, authors are unaware of the reviewers.
Duties of editors
The publication of a manuscript is decided by editor of a peer-reviewed journal that is either society-owned or sponsored. The decision depends entirely upon validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers of the subject journal. The policies made by the corresponding journal's editorial board may provide necessary guidance to the editor that includes but not limited to legal requirements,, copyright infringement and plagiarism. However, the editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
The evaluation of manuscripts by an editor should be based upon its contents irrespective of gender, sex, race, religious beliefs, ethnic or geographic origin, politics and political philosophy of authors.
Information about the submitted manuscript must not be shared to anyone except corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, managing editor, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editor has no right to publish any research material prior written consent of the author. Any ideas or privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should take careful considerations and recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering those manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions associated or affiliated with manuscripts. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
When ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, an editor should take reasonably responsive measures in conjunction with the publisher (or society). This will include contact to corresponding author giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant even discovered much later of publication
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists both the editor and the author ultimately to improve the manuscript; editor in terms of making decision upon merit and author in terms of improving the contents as per international ethics and norms/acceptability.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any submitted manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shown to or discussed accordingly with others except those authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and the reviews should be conducted objectively expressing reviewer’s views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duplication submission or plagiarism
It is crucial that all research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. The editorial board will preserve the published ethics and will monitor and safeguard them. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.If the authors want to retract the article, the editorial should be informed of their decision. The papers are accepted by the editor not on business or political gain but on intellectual and ethical standards. The Editorial Office will also strictly monitor plagiarism and fraudulent data.