Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Animal Health Journal implements a rigorous peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of all submitted manuscripts in the field of animal health and veterinary sciences. This process is essential for maintaining high academic standards and ensuring the integrity of published research.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to ensure objectivity and minimize bias.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to assess:

  • Relevance to animal health and veterinary sciences
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Compliance with journal formatting guidelines
  • Ethical standards

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software. The similarity index must not exceed 20% overall, with no more than 5% from a single source. AI-generated content should remain within acceptable academic limits.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in animal health, veterinary medicine, or related disciplines. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge in animal health
  • Relevance to veterinary practice and animal production
  • Methodological rigor and scientific validity
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity and coherence of writing
  • Compliance with ethical standards

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision

The editorial team makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, and alignment with the journal’s scope. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinions may be requested.

8. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version along with a detailed response addressing all reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers.

9. Review Timeline

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

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal purposes.

11. Ethical Standards

Editors and reviewers are required to:

  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Conduct objective and unbiased reviews
  • Report any suspected ethical misconduct

The journal follows international standards for publication ethics.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal justification. Complaints related to the review process are handled transparently and fairly.

13. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading. Authors must approve the final version before publication. Articles are published online under a continuous publication model.