Peer Review Process

The Peer Review Process

Iranian Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology peer reviews all submitted manuscripts with contents in the scope of the journal. The following flowchart shows the peer review process.

 

Initial assessment and screen (within 10 working days):
  • The submitted manuscript will be subjected to a primary evaluation for technical check by the journal's Editorial officer, at this stage the manuscript may send back to the author to reformat the paper or any other revision (if any) to meet the standards format of the Journal.  The manuscript goes for similarity and plagiarism check by using Ithenticate, and if the percentage of similarity is more than 15%, the article is turned back to author without review process at this stage.
  • The editor or one or more members of the editorial board for suitability and relevance of the findings to the scope of the journal and quality of the science presented in the paper (sufficient originality, having a message that is important to the general field of Veterinary Medicine, quality of data, novelty, English language, and overall manuscript quality). If the paper is evaluated to be relevant to the scope of the journal and has enough scientific rigor and novelty, it will be sent for the next stage. Otherwise, those manuscripts which are evaluated as not appropriate in the initial review will be rejected at this stage. 

Peer review (double-blind):

  • Double-blind which means both sides (the reviewers and authors) identities are concealed from each other, throughout the review process.The manuscripts which are found to be appropriate after the initial screen will be sent for external review by experts in the related field. The reviewers are asked to make their decision on the paper acceptance by completing the evaluation form within at most two weeks. The evaluation form is a checklist for reviewers that summarizes their evaluation of the manuscript. The items in this checklist are: 
    1. TITLE is clear and adequate.
    2. ABSTRACT clearly presents objects, methods, and results. 
    3. INTRODUCTION is well-structured and provides a rationale for the experiments described. 
    4. MATERIALS AND METHODS are sufficiently explained and is detailed enough to be reproduced. 
    5. RESULTS are clearly presented and supported by figures and tables. 
    6. DISCUSSION properly interprets the results and places the results into a larger research context, and contains all important references. 
    7. Conclusions are logically derived from the data presented. 
    8. English Language/style/grammar is clear, correct, and unambiguous. 
    9. Figures and tables are of good quality and well-designed and clearly illustrate the results of the study. 
    10. References are appropriate. 
    11. Regarding this article are you concerned about any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior. 
    12. Comments on the importance of the article. 
  • The Journal editorial board will evaluate the reviewing process as follows:
  • If at least two reviewers recommend same opinion, it will be send to the Editorial board, for final decision (reject or accept), major/minor revision or further reviewing by a third reviewer. Upon the decision in above stage may be the paper is sent back to the author to provide corrections (revise) along with appropriate responses to the reviewer’s comments (longs three months approximately).
  • If a reviewer deny reviewing the paper or does not response about the paper within the predefined period of time, then another person will be assigned by the Editor-in Chief.
  • As soon as the revised version of the manuscript along with the responses to the reviewers’ comments are submitted to the journal (normally within one week), they will be checked by the Editor and then are sent to all of the reviewers for final consideration.
  • Based on the fulfilled peer reviewing process and Journal Editorial board's Comments, the final decision is made by the Editor-in Chief.

  • Final Decision:

  • Based on reviewers' recommendations a final decision is made by the Editor-in Chief and if needed the help of a member of the editorial board (depending on the field of study). Decisions will include accept, minor revision, major revision and  reject. We aim to reach a final decision on each manuscript as soon as their review results are available.