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:

The submitted manuscript will be subjected to a primary review by 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) within two weeks. 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.  

Initial screen:

The initial screen will be performed by the editorial office for the structure and format of the manuscript. 

Peer review (double-blind):

The manuscripts which are found to be appropriate after the initial screen will be sent for external review by experts in the related field. We have prepared 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. 

Final Decision:

 Based on reviewers' recommendations a final decision is made by the editor and if needed the help of a member of the editorial board (depending on the field of study). Decisions will include acceptminor revisionmajor revision with and without re-review, and reject. We aim to reach a final decision on each manuscript as soon as their review results are available.