JVAS follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other.
All manuscripts received by the journal shall first undergo editorial screening to determine whether they:
· fall within the aims and scope of JVAS;
· satisfy basic submission requirements;
· demonstrate adequate originality;
· contain sufficient scientific information and appropriate methodology;
· meet acceptable standards of presentation and English language;
· comply with ethical requirements; and
· satisfy the journal's plagiarism screening requirements.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy essential requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts that successfully complete preliminary screening and plagiarism checking shall be sent for peer review by suitably qualified reviewers.
1. Plagiarism checking
The Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences follow a strict anti-plagiarism policy. Manuscripts found qualified on preliminary editorial review will be subjected to plagiarism check using the “Plagiarism checker X” software. Those manuscripts that fail to pass initial quality checks will be returned back to the author with a one-time warning. If the arguments are considered unsatisfactory, the manuscript will be removed and the author will be prevented from submitting new manuscripts for publication for a period to be determined by the editorial committee.
JVAS presently manages its review process through the journal management system.
2. Responsibility of reviewers
a. Critical facilitators of the peer review process
All the content of the journal will be subjected to peer review which would entail seeking and obtaining advice on each manuscript from individual reviewers who would be proven experts in the field concerned. This process is designed in a manner so as to assist the editor/editorial board in taking publishing decisions and helping authors to improve on the quality of their manuscripts.
b. Confidentiality of manuscripts
The peer review process of the journal is a confidential process and all manuscripts submitted to the journal for review must be considered so. Reviewers are advised that on no account should any information regarding a manuscript be disclosed to a third party without the explicit approval of the editor.
c. Punctuality and objectivity in the review process
An offer to review a manuscript should be considered by a prospective reviewer in the light of the time frame proposed by the editor and the competence of the review as perceived by her/him. In event of the time frame for review of the article being inadequate to the prospective reviewer, it would be in the best interests of all parties concerned that she/he declines the offer. Similarly if the prospective reviewer strongly feels that she/he is not suitably qualified to review the paper, the journal would appreciate a request from the reviewer to absolve her/him from the review process.
An objective and clearly stated assessment of the manuscript supported by relevant data or arguments, wherever appropriate should be the modus operandi of the each reviewer. Reviewers are strongly advised to refrain from making personal statements/ criticism of authors; rather, comments on the originality, redundancy or plagiarism of the submission should be forthcoming from reviewers.
3. Complete acknowledgement of relevant published work
It would be contingent upon the reviewers to ensure that all possible work that is relevant to the manuscript that has not been cited by the author are identified and reported in the comments to the editor. Similarly reviewers should ensure that any material used in the manuscript that has been reported previously is accompanied by the relevant citation. Any substantial similarity or distinct overlap between the submitted article and any other published work that comes to the notice of the reviewer should be communicated to the editor.
4. Freedom to comment on ethical issues
The journal accords all reviewers with unguarded freedom, within the framework of civility, to comment on all relevant possible ethical questions or instances of possible research misconduct that could arise in manuscripts under review. This includes any research design that is unethical per se, a situation wherein data on participant/patient consent is insufficient, or any instance wherein the interests of the research subjects, including animals, are compromised.
The author corrected article after incorporating corrections suggested by the reviewer will be sent for language editing by the team of language editors, after which a final review will be done by the board of editors for approval.