Reviewer's Guideline

The role of the reviewer is vital in maintaining the integrity and quality of the scholarly record. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to established guidelines such as those provided by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf). Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, relying on the expertise and dedication of specialists to uphold high standards. We deeply appreciate the time and effort our reviewers invest in evaluating manuscripts for Animal Reports, as their contributions are essential to the success of the publication process.

General reviewing criteria

The journal uses a closed single-blind peer-review system (the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors). Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Although the journal uses the plagiarism detection system CrossCheck, reviewers should alert the editors if they suspect any issues related to author misconduct, such as plagiarism.

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help both the editors make a decision on the publication and the authors to improve their manuscript. They should point out whether the work has serious flaws that preclude its publication or whether additional experiments should be carried out or additional data should be collected to support the conclusions drawn.

Reviewers invited by editors of the journal should reveal any potential conflict of interest they may have with respect to the manuscript or the authors. All likely personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest should be considered.

Reviewers’ criteria:

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

ü  Hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.

ü  Should not come from the same institution as the authors.

ü  Should not have published together with the authors in the last three years.

ü  Hold a PhD or be MD (applicable for medical research/journals).

ü  Have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus, ORCID).

ü  Are experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper.

ü  Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:

ü  Possess the requisite expertise to critically evaluate the scientific rigor and quality of the manuscript.

ü  Deliver thorough and constructive review reports while ensuring prompt and consistent engagement throughout the peer review process.

ü  Uphold the highest standards of professionalism and adhere to ethical guidelines in all aspects of manuscript evaluation.

Reviewers’ conflicts of interest discloser

Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure if something constitutes a potential conflict of interest and may be perceived as bias for/or against the paper or authors. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

ü  Reviewer works in the same institute as one of the authors.

ü  Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic link with any of the authors within the past three years.

ü  Reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors.

ü  Reviewer may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper.

ü  Reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or any other) with any of the authors.

ü  Others (Reported)

If the reviewer detects any conflicts of interest after accepting the invitation to the manuscript and making a precheck, he must decline the invitation by emailing the editorial office and confidentially handling the invitation content.

For all reviewing process and related policies click here.