Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Animal Reports undergo a single-anonymous peer review process, in which reviewers know the authors’ identities, but reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors. The purpose of this process is to assess the manuscript’s scientific quality, validity, originality, and clarity before publication.

Original research articles, review articles, short communications, case studies, perspectives containing substantive scholarly claims, and other research-based submissions undergo external peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Editorials, corrections, and retractions may undergo editorial review rather than external peer review. Such content is clearly identified by article type and is not presented as externally peer-reviewed research. Invited or commissioned status does not guarantee acceptance.

External Peer-review Workflow▲

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial check by an assistant editor, who checks for compliance with editorial policy and author guidelines, including ethical requirements, potential conflicts of interest, and textual overlap using Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate). Similarity reports are evaluated qualitatively by the editorial team. The journal does not make decisions solely based on a fixed overall similarity percentage; the source, extent, location, and nature of any overlap are considered.

The journal does not make editorial or misconduct decisions solely on the basis of automated similarity, image-analysis, AI-detection, or reviewer-suggestion tools. All automated findings are evaluated by qualified editorial staff.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal’s scope or do not meet minimum scientific or ethical standards may be rejected without external peer review.

A manuscript that passes the technical check and ethical screening is transferred to the Editor-in-Chief for initial editorial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief screens each submission for relevance to the journal’s scope, scientific content, and overall presentation.
Qualified manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor with expertise in the relevant field.
The handling editor invites qualified independent external reviewers to assess the manuscript.
Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methods, contribution to the field, presentation of results, validity of the conclusions, and use of relevant references.
Every manuscript subject to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. Additional reviewers may be appointed when the reports conflict or when specialist expertise is required.
After considering the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor sends a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the editorial decision. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, an independent senior editor makes the decision.
Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to all comments. Major revisions are normally returned to the original reviewers, while minor revisions may be checked by the handling editor.
The handling editor reviews the revised manuscript, the authors’ responses, and any further reviewer reports, then sends a further reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief for a subsequent decision. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, an independent senior editor makes the decision. The possible decisions are:
- Accept: The manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production.
- Minor revision: Limited changes are required. Authors should resubmit within 15 days; reasonable extensions may be granted.
- Major revision: Substantial changes and a point-by-point response are required. Authors should resubmit within 30 days, after which the manuscript is normally returned to the reviewers. Up to two rounds of major revision are generally allowed. Reasonable extensions may be granted. Revision does not guarantee acceptance, and reviewer recommendations and scores are advisory and do not determine the editorial decision on their own.
- Reject: The manuscript has serious scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related problems and is rejected without an invitation to resubmit.

Reviewer Selection and Independence▲

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on their subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant scholarly or professional experience, and their ability to provide an independent and constructive assessment. Reviewers will normally hold a doctoral degree or an equivalent professional qualification and have a relevant research or publication record. Appropriate exceptions may be made for qualified specialists whose expertise is directly relevant to the manuscript.

Their identity and qualifications may be verified through institutional webpages, ORCID records, Scopus Author Profiles, or other reliable scholarly sources. They may be chosen from the journal’s verified reviewer database or identified specifically for the manuscript.

To preserve the independence of peer review, the editorial team screens reviewers for potential conflicts of interest. A reviewer should not serve if they are affiliated with the same institution as any author; have a close personal, family, or supervisory relationship with an author; have co-authored or actively collaborated with an author during the previous three years; or have a direct financial, academic, or competitive interest in the work.

Reviewers are normally invited through a verified institutional email address. Where a non-institutional address is used, the editorial office conducts additional identity verification. Any suspected false identity, impersonation, or compromised reviewer account will result in suspension of the review and investigation by the editorial office.

Appeals▲

Authors of rejected submissions may submit a written appeal to editor@royalacademicpress.com, in which specific reasons for the appeal and a detailed response to the reviewers’ suggestions are included. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the rejection decision.

Appeals are assessed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. Where appropriate, the appeal may be referred to an independent editorial board member or an additional external reviewer. An appeal evaluates whether a material error occurred in the review or decision-making process; it does not constitute an automatic new round of peer review. One appeal is permitted per manuscript, and the decision on the appeal is final.

Editorial Endogeny▲

To minimize editorial endogeny, research articles authored or co-authored by editors, editorial-board members, or journal reviewers must not exceed 25% of the research articles published in each of the journal’s two most recent issues. Such submissions are subject to fully independent editorial handling and external peer review.

Peer Review of Special Issues▲

The qualifications, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest of guest editors are verified and approved before appointment. The peer review process for special issue manuscripts follows the same editorial screening, ethical requirements, and external peer-review standards as regular submissions. A guest editor may serve as the handling editor when they have no conflict of interest with the manuscript. All special-issue articles are clearly labelled.

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the editorial handling of special issues and is responsible for the editorial decision. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest concerning a particular manuscript, an authorized independent senior editor assumes responsibility. In addition, a guest editor cannot handle their own manuscript, and it must undergo completely independent handling. Articles authored or co-authored by guest editors must not exceed 25% of the articles published in the special issue.

Peer-Review Record Retention▲

The journal retains appropriate records of reviewer invitations, reviewer identity verification, conflict-of-interest declarations, completed reports, author response letters, editorial assessments, and decision correspondence in accordance with its record-retention and privacy policies.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest▲

A submission authored by an editor, editorial-board member, employee of the publisher, or a person with whom the responsible editor has a conflict of interest will be assigned to an independent editor who has no involvement with the authors. The conflicted editor will have no access to reviewer identities, reports, deliberations, or the final decision. System permissions will be restricted wherever technically possible, and the independent editor will retain sole responsibility for handling the submission. The same peer-review criteria apply to these submissions.

Reviewers should also consult the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines for information on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical responsibilities, use of generative AI, and preparation of review reports.