Editorial Decision-Making and Independence

Editorial decisions at the Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) are based on the scientific merits of submitted manuscripts, their relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with research and publication ethics. The journal recognizes editorial independence as essential to the credibility of scholarly publishing.

JIPVET is published by Universitas Papua. The publisher supports the journal's administrative and publishing activities, while responsibility for evaluating manuscripts and making publication decisions rests with the authorized editorial team. Institutional, financial, personal, or other external interests must not determine the outcome of individual submissions.

1. Editorial Independence

JIPVET maintains the principle that editorial decisions must be independent of inappropriate influence from the publisher, journal management, institutional authorities, sponsors, advertisers, and other interested parties.

Manuscripts are evaluated on their scientific content without discrimination based on an author's institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly assessment.

The publisher may participate in matters concerning journal administration, resources, institutional accountability, and general publishing policies. Such responsibilities must remain distinct from decisions concerning the scientific acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

Any concern that editorial independence has been compromised should be documented and brought to the attention of an appropriate, unconflicted editorial or institutional authority.

2. Editorial Authority and Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for maintaining the journal's editorial standards, ensuring the integrity of editorial assessment, and overseeing the application of journal policies.

Manuscript handling may be delegated to a Managing Editor, Section Editor, or another authorized editor with relevant subject expertise. The handling editor coordinates the assessment process, selects suitable reviewers, evaluates review reports, and determines or recommends the next editorial action within the authority assigned by the journal.

Editorial responsibilities include:

• Assessing manuscript suitability during initial editorial screening.
• Selecting independent reviewers with relevant scientific expertise.
• Identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest.
• Evaluating the scientific substance of reviewer comments.
• Requesting clarification, revision, or additional review where necessary.
• Ensuring that decisions are properly communicated and documented.
• Protecting the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

Reviewers provide independent scientific recommendations. They do not exercise final authority over manuscript acceptance or rejection. Final publication decisions are made by an authorized editor in accordance with the journal's editorial governance.

3. Basis for Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are informed by the scientific quality of a manuscript and the evidence available during editorial screening and peer review. Relevant considerations include:

1. Journal relevance. Alignment with JIPVET's Aims and Scope and the significance of the research question for animal or veterinary science.
2. Originality and contribution. The extent to which the work adds to existing scientific knowledge without misleading duplication.
3. Methodological soundness. The suitability of the research design, sampling, measurements, and analytical procedures.
4. Reliability of findings. Whether the results support the interpretations and conclusions, with appropriate acknowledgment of uncertainty and limitations.
5. Research and publication ethics. Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, including animal welfare and disclosure obligations where relevant.
6. Scientific reporting. The completeness, clarity, and traceability of methods, results, references, tables, and figures.

Manuscripts may be declined during initial editorial screening if they fall outside the journal's scope or do not meet essential scientific or ethical requirements. Such decisions do not constitute external peer review.

Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are evaluated by one or more independent reviewers selected by the handling editor. Additional reviews may be requested where necessary to support a scientifically informed editorial decision.

Following assessment, the editor may accept the manuscript, request minor or major revision, or reject the submission. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but are not binding on the editor. Where the editorial decision differs materially from the reviewers' recommendations, the editor should be able to explain the scientific or editorial basis for that decision.

No manuscript is guaranteed acceptance on submission, following revision, or following completion of peer review.

4. Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality when handling a manuscript.

Potential conflicts include financial interests, personal relationships, professional competition, recent research collaborations, institutional relationships, and direct involvement in the submitted research.

When a significant conflict is identified, the editor concerned must withdraw from the assessment and decision-making process for that manuscript. Responsibility must be assigned to another appropriately qualified and unconflicted editor.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the manuscript should be managed by an unconflicted editor authorized to exercise the necessary editorial responsibilities without interference from the conflicted individual.

Conflicts identified after an editorial decision must be examined and addressed according to their nature and potential effect on the integrity of the decision.

5. Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members

Members of JIPVET's editorial team, editorial board, and reviewer community may submit manuscripts for publication. Such submissions are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards applied to other authors.

An editor who is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript must not manage its peer review, select its reviewers, assess confidential reviewer reports in an editorial capacity, or determine its publication outcome.

Editorial responsibility must be transferred to an unconflicted editor. External reviewers should be selected independently, and the editorial record should document the reassignment and decision.

The same safeguards apply when editorial independence may be affected by close personal, academic, or institutional relationships. Institutional affiliation alone does not determine the quality of a manuscript, but relevant conflicts must be disclosed and managed.

6. Independence from Publication Fees and Other Interests

Decisions concerning manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection must not be influenced by an author's ability or willingness to pay article processing charges or other publication-related fees.

Financial administration must be separated from scientific decision-making. Individuals responsible for acceptance or rejection decisions must not determine article-specific payments or fee waivers.

Where publication charges apply, the fees and payment conditions must be disclosed through the journal's official Article Processing Charges policy.

Institutional sponsorship, commercial arrangements, or the prospect of additional publication revenue must not affect the scientific evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

7. Confidentiality and Editorial Tools

Editors and editorial staff must protect information obtained during manuscript submission and peer review. Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer identities, confidential reports, and editorial communications must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties.

Manuscript-management systems, similarity-screening software, and other editorial tools may support administrative or scientific assessment. Such tools must not replace accountable human editorial judgment.

Any use of generative AI or AI-assisted systems in editorial work must comply with the journal's confidentiality and AI-use policies. Editors must not disclose confidential manuscript material to external systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Editorial personnel must not use unpublished findings, data, or ideas obtained through manuscript assessment for personal research or professional advantage.

8. Complaints, Appeals, and External Interference

Authors may raise concerns about editorial procedures, potential conflicts of interest, or decisions that they believe were affected by a material error or inappropriate influence.

A complaint or appeal should identify the relevant submission or decision, explain the concern, and provide supporting information.

Appeals should be assessed on their merits. Where practicable, a qualified editor who was not responsible for the original decision should participate in the reconsideration, particularly when impartiality is disputed.

When disagreements arise between editorial personnel and the publisher concerning an individual manuscript, the parties should document the issue and seek resolution through a process that preserves editorial independence while addressing legitimate ethical or legal obligations.

Requests for reconsideration do not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision. Further procedures are described in the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

9. Accountability and Editorial Records

Editorial decisions should be supported by an identifiable scientific or procedural rationale. The journal should maintain appropriate records of manuscript screening, reviewer assignments, review reports, author revisions, conflicts of interest, and editorial decisions.

Such records support continuity of manuscript handling, the investigation of legitimate complaints, and periodic review of editorial procedures. Access to confidential records must be restricted to authorized personnel.

JIPVET's editorial policies and practices should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain appropriate to the journal's scope, publishing responsibilities, and recognized standards of publication ethics.