Peer Review Policy

The Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) operates a peer-review process designed to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer review provides independent scientific advice to editors and helps authors improve the accuracy and clarity of their work. Recommendations from reviewers inform editorial decisions but do not replace the responsibility of editors to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication.

1. Peer Review Model

JIPVET uses a double-anonymized peer-review model, commonly referred to as double-blind peer review. Under this arrangement, the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process.

Editors responsible for managing manuscripts may have access to author and reviewer identities as necessary for editorial administration and conflict-of-interest assessment.

Authors are expected to prepare anonymized manuscript files in accordance with the journal's submission instructions. Reviewers must respect the anonymity of the review process.

JIPVET recognizes that anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when related research has been publicly disseminated. Editors and reviewers must nevertheless maintain the confidentiality required by the journal.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript undergoes initial editorial assessment before external peer review. This assessment is conducted by the responsible editor or Section Editor.

Initial screening considers the following:

• Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope.
• Compliance with manuscript preparation and submission requirements.
• Originality and potential overlap with previously published material.
• Scientific rationale, research objectives, and suitability of the study design.
• Adequacy of methodological and statistical reporting for initial assessment.
• Research ethics, animal welfare, and required disclosures, where applicable.
• Clarity of presentation and the potential contribution of the research to animal and veterinary science.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack essential scientific information, or contain serious ethical or methodological concerns may be declined without external peer review. Authors may also be asked to address correctable deficiencies before the manuscript proceeds.

Initial screening by an editor is distinct from independent external peer review.

3. Selection and Assignment of Reviewers

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.

Reviewers are selected with consideration of their expertise in the subject and methods of the study, research experience, ability to provide an objective assessment, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could compromise their independence, including relevant professional, institutional, financial, or personal relationships. Editors must manage such conflicts before assigning or continuing a review.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board or registered reviewers must be handled without preferential treatment. Individuals with a relevant conflict of interest must not control the editorial assessment of their own work.

4. Criteria for Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the nature of the research and the standards appropriate to the relevant field of animal or veterinary science.

The scientific assessment addresses:

1. Relevance and contribution. The importance of the research question and its relationship to existing scientific knowledge.
2. Originality. The distinct scholarly contribution of the manuscript and its relationship to previously published research.
3. Study design. The suitability of the experimental, observational, computational, or review methodology for addressing the stated objectives.
4. Methods and analysis. The adequacy of sampling, measurement, analytical procedures, statistical methods, and reproducibility of the reported work.
5. Results and interpretation. The consistency of conclusions with the evidence, including appropriate treatment of uncertainty and study limitations.
6. Research ethics. Compliance with relevant ethical requirements, including animal welfare and research approvals where applicable.
7. Scientific reporting. The clarity, completeness, and consistency of tables, figures, references, and manuscript sections.

Reviewers should identify substantive scientific concerns and provide constructive recommendations supported by clear reasoning. Personal criticism and unsupported judgments are inappropriate.

5. Peer Review and Editorial Workflow

Manuscripts generally proceed through the following editorial stages:

1. Submission. The corresponding author submits the manuscript and required information through the journal's online submission system.
2. Editorial screening. The editor examines the manuscript for scope, completeness, originality, and initial scientific suitability.
3. Reviewer assignment. Manuscripts suitable for external review are assigned to independent subject experts.
4. Scientific review. Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit reports containing their findings and recommendations.
5. Editorial evaluation. The handling editor considers the review reports and the manuscript before determining the next action.
6. Author revision. Where revision is invited, authors submit a revised manuscript and a response addressing the reviewers' and editor's comments.
7. Reassessment. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional editorial assessment or external review when necessary.
8. Final decision. The responsible editor determines whether the manuscript meets the journal's requirements for publication.

Acceptance is followed by the journal's production and publication procedures. Completion of peer review does not guarantee publication.

6. Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Following scientific assessment, an editorial decision may involve acceptance, a request for minor revision, a request for major revision, or rejection.

Decisions take account of the reviewers' recommendations, the scientific merits of the manuscript, the authors' responses, and compliance with the journal's editorial policies.

Reviewers provide recommendations; they do not make the final publication decision. Responsibility for that decision rests with the authorized editor.

Authors invited to revise their work should respond to substantive comments individually and identify the relevant changes in the revised manuscript. Where a recommendation is not adopted, authors should provide a reasoned scientific explanation.

A request for revision does not constitute a commitment to accept the manuscript.

7. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Manuscripts under editorial consideration, reviewer reports, and related communications must be treated as confidential. Information obtained through the review process must not be used for personal research or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts, delegate reviews, or disclose unpublished findings to unauthorized individuals. Use of AI-assisted tools in peer review must comply with JIPVET's confidentiality and generative AI policies.

Concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, citation manipulation, or other possible breaches of research integrity should be communicated confidentially to the editor.

Such concerns are examined in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

8. Review Timelines and Communication

JIPVET seeks to conduct manuscript assessments without unnecessary delay. The duration of peer review may vary according to reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required.

Authors are informed of editorial decisions through the journal's submission and communication system. Where substantial delays occur, the editorial office should provide appropriate information concerning the status of the manuscript.

Authors may contact the editorial office regarding the progress of their submission through the journal's official communication channels.

9. Complaints, Appeals, and Editorial Reconsideration

Authors who identify a substantive procedural concern or believe that an editorial decision was based on a material misunderstanding may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration.

Requests should identify the disputed issue and provide supporting evidence. Editorial concerns and appeals are considered under the journal's publication ethics and complaints procedures.

Reconsideration does not guarantee a different editorial decision.