Reviewer Guidelines

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. 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 Criteria▲

Animal Reports uses a single-anonymous peer-review model, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors, but reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript subject to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise.

Reviewer Responsibilities▲

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a comprehensive recommendation to the editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions (minor or major), or should be rejected. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the editorial decision. The handling editor submits a reasoned editorial recommendation, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the editorial decision. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, an authorized independent senior editor makes the decision.

The invited reviewers are asked to:

Accept or decline the invitation promptly after reviewing the title and abstract within 5-7 days.
Submit their report through the journal’s online system within 14–21 days or promptly notify the editor if unable to do so.
Request an extension when additional time is needed.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may request clarification, invite another independent reviewer, or make a reasoned recommendation based on the reports and their own assessment.

Although the journal screens submissions using Crossref Similarity Check, similarity results are assessed by qualified editorial staff and are not treated as conclusive evidence of plagiarism. Reviewers should report any specific concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, data integrity, image manipulation, or other potential misconduct to the handling editor.

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editor evaluate the manuscript and help the authors improve it.

Reviewers should identify whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusions. Requests for additional experiments, analyses, or data must be scientifically justified, proportionate to the study’s objectives, and essential to evaluating the manuscript’s principal claims.

Disclosure of Reviewer Conflicts of Interest▲

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual potential conflicts of interest and email the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure whether 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):

Reviewer works in the same institution as one of the authors.
Reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or any other academic link, with any of the authors within the past three years.
Reviewers have a close personal relationship, rivalry or antipathy to any of the authors.
Reviewers may in any way gain or lose financially from publication of the paper.
Reviewers have any other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.
Any other circumstance that could affect an independent assessment.

If a conflict becomes apparent after acceptance, the reviewer must stop the review, maintain confidentiality, and immediately notify the editorial office. The handling editor determines whether the reviewer may continue.

Confidentiality▲

Reviewers must not share the manuscript, associated files, review correspondence, or unpublished findings with any person without prior written permission from the handling editor. Any approved consultant must be identified to the editor and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Use of Generative AI▲

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any related materials -including text, images, figures, tables, supplementary files, review reports, or correspondence-to any generative-AI tool. If the journal establishes that this policy has been breached, the review report will be disregarded, and appropriate editorial action may be taken.

Reviewer Misconduct and Citation Practices▲

Suspected reviewer misconduct including breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts, impersonation, fabricated reports, coercive citation, or misappropriation of ideas will be investigated, and the review may be discarded.

Reviewers must not request citations to their own work, another author’s work, or articles from the journal for the purpose of increasing citation counts. Suggested references should be directly relevant and supported by clear scientific justification.

Preparing the Review Report▲

The review report should be written in clear, professional English. Comments meant only for the handling editor should be placed in the confidential section of the review form.

1. General Guidance

Please read the entire manuscript, including any supplementary material, before writing your report. Consider the work as a whole and pay close attention to the methods, analysis, results, figures, and tables.
Comments should be fair, constructive, and detailed enough to help the authors improve their manuscript. Maintain a respectful and impartial tone. Personal, dismissive, or derogatory remarks are not acceptable.
The report should focus on the scientific content. Detailed language editing is not required, although problems that affect clarity or scientific meaning should be noted. If you are unable to assess an important part of the manuscript, please inform the handling editor.

2. Structure of the Report

A review report should normally include the following:

Brief Summary

Begin with a short paragraph describing the manuscript’s purpose, approach, main contribution, relevance, and strengths. Avoid repeating the abstract.

Major Comments

Major comments should address issues that affect the quality, reliability, or value of the manuscript. Where relevant, consider:

Whether the manuscript fits the scope of Animal Reports and offers a clear and meaningful contribution.
Whether the research question, topic, or purpose is well defined and sufficiently original.
Whether the study design, methods, controls, sampling, replication, and statistical analysis are appropriate and clearly described.
Whether the information provided is sufficient to understand and reproduce the work.
For review articles, whether the literature is adequately covered, critically discussed, and meaningfully synthesized.
Whether the results, arguments, and conclusions are supported by the evidence.
Whether important limitations, uncertainties, or conflicting findings have been considered.
Whether the figures, tables, and references are relevant, accurate, and clearly presented.
Whether the required ethical approval, consent, animal-welfare, funding, competing-interest, and data availability statements are adequate.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, also consider the search strategy, study-selection criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, synthesis methods, and relevant reporting guidelines.

For each major concern, explain why it matters and what clarification or revision is needed.

Minor Comments

Minor comments may address specific points that would improve accuracy, clarity, or presentation. Refer to the relevant line, section, table, or figure whenever possible.

3. Ethics and Confidential Concerns

Please notify the handling editor confidentially if you identify:

A conflict of interest that may affect your review.
Possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, or inappropriate image manipulation.
Excessive or inappropriate self-citation.
Inadequate ethical approval, consent, or animal-welfare reporting.
Specific evidence that undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI may have affected the manuscript’s accuracy, authorship, references, images, data, confidentiality, or research integrity.
Any other serious ethical concern.

Concerns should be based on identifiable evidence. The use of generative AI should not be assumed from writing style alone. Reviewers should report concerns to the editor rather than make allegations directly to the authors or attempt to investigate the matter themselves.

Confidential comments may also be used to mention concerns about data reliability or limitations in the reviewer’s expertise. Scientific points that the authors are expected to address should normally appear in the comments to the authors.

4. Manuscript Rating

Please assign a score from 0 to 100 for each criterion:

Relevance: Fit with the journal’s scope and readership.
Originality: Novelty and clarity of the work.
Contribution to the field: Contribution to current knowledge or practice.
Scientific Quality: Strength of the methods, evidence, and interpretation.
Presentation Quality: Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
English and Readability: Clarity and ease of understanding.

Scores should support the written report and remain consistent with the final recommendation.

5. Final Recommendation

Please select one of the following:

Accept: No substantive revision is required.
Minor Revision: Limited changes are needed.
Major Revision: Substantial revision is required before reconsideration.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for the journal or has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be corrected.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after receiving a reasoned recommendation from handling editor. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, a designated independent senior editor makes the decision.

For a complete description of manuscript screening, external review, editorial decisions, appeals, and special-issue safeguards, please see the journal’s Peer Review Process.

Updated: 10 August 2026