For Reviewer

How to Become a Reviewer

Researchers interested in serving as reviewers should register through the journal’s online submission system.

Registration Steps

  1. Register on the journal website
  2. Complete your profile with accurate academic and professional details
  3. Select the option to be available as a reviewer
  4. Clearly indicate your reviewing interests and areas of expertise
  5. Keep your profile updated

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

  • Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors based on expertise
  • Invitations are sent according to manuscript relevance
  • Reviewers may accept or decline based on availability or conflicts of interest

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
  • Assess manuscripts for originality, scientific quality, and relevance
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all submitted materials
  • Offer professional and respectful feedback to authors

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality: Contribution to veterinary and animal health knowledge
  • Scientific Rigor: Sound methodology and analysis
  • Relevance: Alignment with the journal’s scope
  • Clarity: Organization and quality of writing
  • References: Accuracy and relevance of citations

Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • All submissions and reviewer reports are treated as confidential
  • Reviewers must not share or use unpublished data
  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous under the double-blind review system

Conflict of Interest Policy

  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest
  • Conflicts may include institutional affiliation, collaborations, or financial interests
  • Manuscripts with conflicts should be declined

Peer Review Process

Type of Review

Animal Health (AH) follows a double-blind peer review system, ensuring impartiality and objectivity.

Initial Editorial Screening

  • Manuscripts are evaluated for scope, quality, and formatting
  • Plagiarism screening is conducted using standard tools

Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Editorial Decision

  • Final decisions are made by the editorial team
  • Revised manuscripts may undergo further review

Peer Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review: 4–8 weeks
  • Final decision: depends on revisions

Ethical Standards and Complaints

The journal follows international publishing ethics and COPE guidelines. Any concerns, appeals, or complaints related to peer review are handled transparently by the editorial board.