Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Peer reviewers contribute to the editorial assessment of manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET). Their role is to provide independent, informed, and constructive evaluations that assist editors in determining the scientific suitability of submitted work.

JIPVET operates a double-anonymized peer-review process. Manuscripts proceeding to external peer review are evaluated by one or more independent reviewers selected by the handling editor. Additional reviews may be requested when necessary to support an informed editorial decision.

Reviewers are expected to act professionally, respect the confidentiality of unpublished work, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and base their assessments on scientific evidence. The following requirements apply to all reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts for JIPVET.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers provide scientific advice to the handling editor and constructive feedback to authors. Their assessments should identify the strengths and limitations of a manuscript, including issues that may affect the reliability, interpretation, or contribution of the reported research.

Reviewers are responsible for:

• Evaluating the manuscript independently and within their field of expertise.
• Assessing the scientific rationale, study design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation of findings.
• Identifying substantive errors, unsupported conclusions, and deficiencies in reporting.
• Providing specific, evidence-based comments that authors can reasonably address.
• Identifying relevant ethical or publication integrity concerns and informing the editor.
• Submitting a review report within the agreed review period.

Reviewers should distinguish between issues that affect scientific validity and suggestions intended primarily to improve presentation. A recommendation to reject or substantially revise a manuscript should be supported by clear scientific reasoning.

2. Expertise, Availability, and Review Invitations

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the relevant scientific content and can complete the assessment within the requested timeframe.

A reviewer who considers a manuscript outside their area of competence should decline the invitation or inform the editor of the specific limitations of their expertise.

Review invitations should be answered promptly. If a reviewer cannot complete an accepted assignment on time, the editor should be informed as early as possible. Requests for an extension must be communicated through the journal's editorial system.

Suggestions of alternative reviewers must be based on relevant scientific expertise and must not be intended to influence the outcome of the manuscript assessment.

3. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation and whenever a relevant conflict becomes apparent during the review process.

Such conflicts may arise from:

• Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.
• Employment at the same institution or involvement in the research project.
• Financial interests connected to the research or its potential applications.
• Close personal or professional relationships.
• Direct scientific competition or circumstances that could compromise impartial judgment.

Reviewers should decline an assignment when a conflict prevents an independent assessment. Where the significance of a potential conflict is uncertain, the reviewer must disclose the circumstances and seek the editor's decision before proceeding.

Under double-anonymized review, reviewers must not attempt to identify authors. If an author's identity becomes apparent and raises a potential conflict, the editor must be informed.

4. Confidentiality and Protection of Manuscripts

Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents. This obligation extends to supplementary materials, unpublished data, images, review reports, and communications associated with the editorial process.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscript files or unpublished material with unauthorized individuals.
• Discuss a manuscript with colleagues or third parties without prior editorial authorization.
• Use unpublished findings, methods, data, or ideas for personal research or professional advantage.
• Contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review without the editor's permission.
• Disclose reviewer identities, confidential reports, or editorial communications without authorization.

Reviewers wishing to involve a colleague or trainee in the assessment must obtain prior permission from the handling editor. Any approved contributor must respect the same confidentiality requirements and must be identified to the editor.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed, irrespective of whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

5. Scientific Assessment Standards

Reviewers should apply standards appropriate to the manuscript's subject and research design. For research in animal and veterinary science, the assessment should address relevant methodological, analytical, and ethical considerations.

1. Research question and contribution. Assess the clarity of the objectives, the scientific rationale, and the relationship to existing literature.
2. Study design. Evaluate whether the sampling strategy, experimental arrangement, controls, and measurements are appropriate to the research objectives.
3. Methods and reproducibility. Examine whether methods are described sufficiently to support interpretation and reproducibility.
4. Statistical analysis. Consider the suitability of the analytical approach, assumptions, sample size, reporting of uncertainty, and interpretation of statistical results.
5. Results and conclusions. Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the reported evidence and whether important limitations are acknowledged.
6. Animal welfare and research ethics. Assess the adequacy of ethical disclosures, animal handling procedures, and relevant welfare safeguards where applicable.
7. Presentation and references. Assess the clarity of scientific writing, tables, figures, citations, and acknowledgment of relevant literature.

Reviewers should not require a particular analytical method, interpretation, or additional experiment solely on the basis of personal preference. Recommendations for additional analyses or experiments should explain their relevance to the validity or interpretation of the findings.

6. Preparation of Review Reports

Review reports must be objective, professionally written, and sufficiently detailed to inform editorial decisions and assist authors in addressing scientific concerns.

Reviewers should identify major concerns separately from minor corrections and provide specific recommendations wherever possible.

Major concerns may involve study design, research ethics, data reliability, analytical validity, interpretation, or substantial deficiencies in reporting. Minor comments may address presentation, terminology, references, or other correctable matters.

Reviewers must avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, and comments unrelated to the scholarly merit of the work.

Recommendations for additional references must be scientifically justified. Reviewers must not request citations to their own work or the work of associates merely to increase citation counts.

Where the review system provides separate fields for comments to authors and confidential comments to editors, reviewers should use them appropriately. Substantive scientific concerns should normally be communicated to authors. Confidential comments must not be used to introduce unsupported allegations or personal criticism.

Reviewers should indicate when their assessment is limited to particular aspects of a manuscript.

7. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers who identify potential problems involving research or publication integrity must report their concerns confidentially to the handling editor.

Such concerns may include:

• Substantial unattributed textual overlap or possible plagiarism.
• Suspected duplicate or redundant publication.
• Possible fabrication, falsification, or unexplained inconsistencies in data.
• Potentially misleading image manipulation or presentation of research findings.
• Inadequate disclosure of animal research ethics or welfare procedures.
• Citation manipulation or attempts to influence the peer-review process.

Reviewers should distinguish documented observations from suspicions and provide relevant evidence where possible.

Reviewers must not independently contact the authors' institutions, investigate allegations outside the editorial process, or disclose concerns publicly without authorization.

The editor is responsible for determining whether further examination is necessary under JIPVET's publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

8. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools

Reviewers must comply with JIPVET's Policy on the Use of Generative AI Tools. Scientific judgments and recommendations must remain the responsibility of the individual reviewer.

JIPVET permits AI-assisted language improvement of review reports, provided that manuscript confidentiality is maintained and the scientific assessment remains the reviewer's own work.

Reviewers are prohibited from:

• Uploading or copying manuscripts, substantial manuscript excerpts, unpublished results, or confidential supplementary material into public generative AI platforms.
• Delegating judgments concerning scientific validity, originality, or methodological quality to AI systems.
• Submitting AI-generated scientific evaluations without independent expert assessment and verification.
• Using AI systems in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality or the intellectual property of authors.

Reviewers remain accountable for the accuracy, fairness, and scientific justification of their reports. The use of AI-assisted tools does not reduce these responsibilities.

9. Professional Conduct and Review Integrity

Reviewers must conduct their assessments honestly, independently, and without attempting to manipulate the editorial process or obtain an improper advantage.

The following conduct is unacceptable:

• Misrepresenting identity, qualifications, institutional affiliation, or expertise.
• Impersonating another reviewer or submitting a report on another individual's behalf without authorization.
• Using privileged manuscript information for personal, academic, or commercial gain.
• Attempting to influence editorial decisions through inappropriate personal, financial, or institutional pressure.
• Demanding unnecessary citations, experiments, or changes for personal benefit.
• Sharing confidential review materials without permission.

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct should be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorized, unconflicted editor.

When a serious breach is substantiated, the journal may discontinue the review assignment and consider further action in accordance with its editorial and publication ethics policies.

10. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide recommendations based on their evaluation of the manuscript. These recommendations may support acceptance, revision, or rejection, but do not constitute the final publication decision.

The handling editor considers the review reports, the scientific merits of the manuscript, the authors' responses, and compliance with journal policies.

The editor may request clarification or additional independent review when necessary. A reviewer may also be invited to assess a revised manuscript when further evaluation would be useful.

Final editorial authority rests with the editor authorized by JIPVET's editorial governance. A reviewer's recommendation does not guarantee acceptance or rejection.