Ethical Oversight

Ethical Oversight Policy

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) is committed to ensuring that all research submitted to and published in the journal is conducted and reported in accordance with responsible research practices, applicable ethical standards, and relevant legal and institutional requirements.

Ethical oversight is particularly important in animal science and livestock research, where scientific investigations may involve living animals, biological materials, experimental interventions, animal welfare considerations, human participants, confidential farm information, and commercially sensitive research data.

The journal recognizes that ethical responsibility extends beyond obtaining formal approval from a research ethics committee. Researchers must demonstrate respect for animal welfare, human dignity, privacy, scientific integrity, environmental safety, and the responsible use of research resources throughout the research process.

This policy establishes the journal's requirements and proposed procedures for ethical approval, animal research, human participant protection, informed consent, confidentiality, responsible research conduct, and the management of ethical concerns.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and relevant international principles of responsible research and scholarly publishing.

2. Description

2.1. Ethical Oversight

Ethical oversight refers to the processes through which researchers, institutions, ethics committees, editors, and other responsible parties ensure that research is planned, conducted, documented, and published ethically.

For Andalasian Livestock, ethical oversight encompasses the following areas.

Animal Research Ethics

Ensuring that research involving livestock or other animals is scientifically justified and conducted with appropriate safeguards for animal health and welfare.

Human Research Ethics

Protecting the rights, dignity, privacy, safety, and autonomy of individuals participating in research, including farmers, livestock workers, veterinarians, consumers, and other stakeholders.

Ethics Committee Approval

Obtaining approval, authorization, or a formal exemption from an appropriate ethics committee when required by applicable laws, institutional rules, or recognized research standards.

Informed Consent

Ensuring that human participants receive adequate information and voluntarily agree to participate in research, subject to applicable legal and ethics committee requirements.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Protecting personal information, confidential farm records, commercial information, and other restricted research materials.

Responsible Research Conduct

Preventing fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical experimentation, misleading reporting, and other practices that compromise research integrity.

Ethical Publishing Practices

Ensuring that editorial decisions and publication procedures are independent, transparent, and consistent with the journal's published ethical standards.

3. Policy

3.1. Compliance with Ethical and Legal Requirements

All research submitted to Andalasian Livestock must comply with applicable ethical principles, institutional policies, and relevant national and local laws in the jurisdiction where the research was conducted.

Authors are responsible for determining and fulfilling the requirements applicable to their study.

Where research involves multiple institutions or countries, authors must ensure that all necessary approvals and permissions have been obtained.

Ethical approval obtained in one jurisdiction does not automatically replace additional approvals required elsewhere.

The journal may request evidence of compliance when necessary to assess the ethical acceptability of a manuscript.

3.2. Ethical Approval for Animal Research

Research involving live animals must comply with applicable animal research ethics and welfare requirements.

Where approval from an animal ethics committee or equivalent institutional authority is required, authors must obtain the approval before commencing the relevant research procedures.

The manuscript should identify:

  • The name of the approving ethics committee or authorized institution.

  • The approval number or reference identifier, where available.

  • The date or period of approval, where relevant.

  • The applicable animal welfare guidelines or standards.

  • Any relevant conditions imposed by the approving body.

Authors must not falsely claim ethical approval or use an approval issued for an unrelated research protocol.

Where an ethics committee has formally determined that approval is not required, authors should explain the exemption and identify the relevant authority or institutional basis.

Where no formal review mechanism exists, authors must explain the applicable regulatory and institutional framework and how the research complied with appropriate animal welfare standards.

The absence of a local ethics committee does not automatically exempt a study from ethical responsibilities.

3.3. Animal Welfare and Humane Treatment

Andalasian Livestock expects research involving animals to be designed and conducted with due regard for animal health, welfare, and humane treatment.

Authors should demonstrate that:

  1. The scientific objectives justify the use of animals.

  2. The selected species and number of animals are appropriate for the research question.

  3. Experimental procedures minimize avoidable pain, distress, injury, and suffering.

  4. Animals receive appropriate housing, feeding, water, care, and veterinary attention.

  5. Handling, restraint, sampling, and experimental interventions are performed by appropriately trained personnel.

  6. Adverse events are monitored and addressed responsibly.

  7. Humane endpoints are established when relevant.

  8. Procedures comply with applicable institutional and regulatory requirements.

The journal may request additional information when the manuscript does not adequately explain how animal welfare was protected.

3.4. The 3Rs Principles in Animal Research

Authors are encouraged to apply the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement when designing and conducting research involving animals.

Replacement

Use scientifically appropriate alternatives to animal experimentation whenever feasible.

Reduction

Use an appropriate number of animals to achieve valid scientific objectives while avoiding unnecessary animal use.

Refinement

Improve experimental procedures and animal management practices to minimize pain, distress, and adverse welfare effects.

The 3Rs should be applied in a manner consistent with the research design, scientific objectives, and relevant ethical requirements.

Where applicable, authors should explain how these principles informed their experimental procedures.

3.5. Reporting Standards for Animal Experiments

Authors conducting animal experiments should report their methods with sufficient detail to permit scientific evaluation and assessment of ethical compliance.

Relevant information may include:

  • Animal species, breed, age, sex, and physiological condition.

  • Source and selection of experimental animals.

  • Sample size and its scientific justification.

  • Experimental unit and allocation procedures.

  • Randomization and blinding, where applicable.

  • Housing and environmental conditions.

  • Feeding and management procedures.

  • Experimental treatments and interventions.

  • Biological sampling methods.

  • Veterinary care and welfare monitoring.

  • Anesthesia, analgesia, or sedation where relevant.

  • Humane endpoints and euthanasia methods, where applicable.

  • Adverse events and unexpected outcomes.

  • Ethical approval information.

Authors are encouraged to consult the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines when reporting in vivo animal experiments, where those guidelines are applicable.

The journal recognizes that reporting requirements may differ among controlled experiments, observational studies, farm surveys, and other research designs.

3.6. Animal Health, Disease Research, and Biosecurity

Research involving animal diseases, infectious agents, veterinary treatments, or biological specimens must comply with applicable animal health, biosafety, and biosecurity requirements.

Authors should provide appropriate information regarding:

  • Relevant institutional or regulatory permissions.

  • Animal health monitoring.

  • Disease prevention and containment measures.

  • Handling and disposal of biological materials.

  • Veterinary supervision where necessary.

  • Procedures for managing adverse animal health outcomes.

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation where serious concerns arise regarding biosafety, animal welfare, or compliance with applicable requirements.

3.7. Research Conducted on Commercial Farms

Studies conducted in commercial livestock enterprises must respect animal welfare requirements, farm biosecurity procedures, lawful access conditions, and legitimate confidentiality obligations.

Authors should obtain permission from the appropriate farm owner, operator, or authorized representative when required.

Research conducted in commercial settings must not compromise the welfare of animals solely to obtain commercially favorable results.

Relevant financial or professional relationships with participating farms or companies must be disclosed under the journal's Conflicts of Interest Policy.

Where proprietary farm data are used, authors must ensure that the information is reported in accordance with applicable permissions and confidentiality requirements.

3.8. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants must respect their rights, dignity, privacy, and autonomy.

This requirement may apply to studies involving:

  • Livestock farmers and farm households.

  • Agricultural workers and farm employees.

  • Veterinarians and animal health professionals.

  • Livestock traders and industry representatives.

  • Consumers and community members.

  • Other individuals participating in surveys, interviews, observations, or experimental studies.

Authors must obtain the ethical approval, authorization, or exemption required by the applicable institutional and legal framework.

The manuscript should clearly report the ethical status of the study.

3.9. Informed Consent to Participate

Where informed consent is required, researchers must provide prospective participants with sufficient information to make a voluntary and informed decision.

Relevant information may include:

  • The purpose of the research.

  • The nature of participation.

  • Expected activities and duration.

  • Potential risks or discomfort.

  • Expected benefits, if any.

  • Confidentiality and data handling arrangements.

  • The voluntary nature of participation.

  • Applicable withdrawal rights and limitations.

  • Contact information for research-related questions.

Consent procedures must be appropriate to the research context and consistent with applicable ethics committee requirements.

Where verbal, electronic, or other consent procedures are authorized, authors should describe the method used.

If consent was waived by an authorized ethics committee, the manuscript should identify the basis of the waiver.

3.10. Protection of Vulnerable Participants

Additional safeguards are required when research involves individuals or groups who may be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or other forms of harm.

In livestock and agricultural research, vulnerability may arise from economic dependency, employment relationships, limited access to information, or other contextual circumstances.

Authors must ensure that participation is voluntary and that individuals are not subjected to inappropriate pressure.

Where relevant, researchers should explain:

  • Why the population was included.

  • How consent was obtained.

  • How potential coercion was minimized.

  • How confidentiality was protected.

  • Whether additional ethics committee safeguards were required.

3.11. Consent for Publication of Identifiable Information

Consent to participate in research is distinct from consent to publish identifiable information.

Where a manuscript includes identifiable personal information, photographs, recordings, detailed case descriptions, or quotations that could reasonably identify an individual, authors must obtain appropriate consent for publication unless another lawful and ethically justified basis applies.

Authors must ensure that individuals understand the nature of the information intended for publication.

Identifying information should be omitted when it is not necessary for the scientific purpose.

The journal may request evidence of publication consent when relevant.

Consent documentation should be handled confidentially and should not ordinarily be published with the article.

3.12. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Protection

Authors must protect personal data and other confidential information collected during research.

This responsibility includes information relating to:

  • Farmers and farm workers.

  • Livestock enterprise owners.

  • Research participants and respondents.

  • Confidential farm production records.

  • Proprietary breeding or genetic information.

  • Commercially sensitive operational data.

  • Restricted veterinary or animal health records.

Appropriate safeguards may include anonymization, pseudonymization, secure storage, restricted access, and controlled data sharing.

Authors must comply with applicable data protection laws, ethical approvals, and legitimate confidentiality agreements.

The journal does not require public disclosure of confidential data where doing so would violate lawful or ethical obligations.

Restrictions on data availability should be explained under the journal's Data and Reproducibility Policy.

3.13. Ethical Use of Biological Materials

Research involving animal tissues, blood, semen, embryos, genetic materials, or other biological specimens must comply with applicable collection, handling, storage, transport, and use requirements.

Authors should obtain necessary permissions and describe relevant procedures sufficiently to establish that the materials were collected and used responsibly.

Where biological materials were obtained from external institutions, farms, repositories, or commercial providers, authors should disclose the source and any relevant permissions.

The use of previously collected biological materials does not automatically eliminate ethical or legal responsibilities.

3.14. Environmental Responsibility

Research involving livestock production systems, waste management, agricultural chemicals, or environmental interventions should comply with applicable environmental and safety requirements.

Authors should take appropriate measures to prevent unnecessary environmental harm, contamination, or unsafe disposal of experimental materials.

Where environmental permits or institutional approvals are required, the relevant requirements must be satisfied.

3.15. Responsible Research Conduct

Andalasian Livestock does not tolerate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research practices, or deliberate misrepresentation of ethical approval.

Authors must accurately report:

  • Research design and procedures.

  • Ethical approval and consent.

  • Animal welfare safeguards.

  • Data collection and analysis.

  • Adverse events and relevant limitations.

  • Funding and competing interests.

Ethical approval does not excuse unreliable scientific reporting or other forms of research misconduct.

Concerns about the integrity of research will be addressed under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

3.16. Ethical Approval Statements in Manuscripts

As a proposed submission requirement, manuscripts reporting research involving animals or human participants should contain a clearly identifiable ethics statement.

The statement should identify the approving authority, approval reference where available, and relevant ethical standards.

Where approval was not required, authors must provide an accurate explanation consistent with applicable requirements.

Statements such as "ethical approval was not necessary" should not be used without a reasonable and supportable basis.

The journal may request clarification or supporting documentation before making an editorial decision.

3.17. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers share responsibility for identifying potential ethical concerns in submitted manuscripts.

They should consider whether:

  • Required ethical approval has been reported.

  • Animal welfare procedures are adequately described.

  • Consent requirements have been addressed.

  • Confidential information is appropriately protected.

  • Research procedures raise serious ethical concerns.

  • Reported methods are consistent with the stated ethical approval.

Reviewers should report suspected ethical problems confidentially to the handling editor.

Editors must assess concerns fairly and may seek independent advice or institutional clarification when appropriate.

3.18. Ethical Independence of Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions must be based on scientific merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological rigor, and ethical acceptability.

Commercial sponsors, institutional administrators, advertisers, or other interested parties must not improperly influence acceptance decisions.

The payment of an Article Processing Charge, where applicable, must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted.

Manuscripts with serious unresolved ethical concerns must not be accepted solely because of their scientific novelty, institutional affiliation, or financial support.

3.19. Ethical Concerns Identified Before Publication

Where a credible ethical concern is identified during submission, editorial screening, or peer review, the journal may suspend editorial processing while the concern is assessed.

The editorial team may:

  1. Request clarification from the authors.

  2. Request evidence of ethical approval or exemption.

  3. Examine relevant study protocols or supporting documents.

  4. Seek independent ethical or subject-matter advice.

  5. Contact an appropriate institution or ethics committee when justified.

  6. Reject the manuscript if serious ethical deficiencies are substantiated or remain unresolved.

The journal should distinguish between remediable reporting omissions and substantive ethical violations.

A missing approval statement may be correctable when valid prior approval exists. It must not be assumed that retrospective approval can remedy research that required authorization before it began.

3.20. Ethical Concerns Identified After Publication

Credible concerns about the ethical conduct of published research will be assessed under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Depending on the available evidence, the journal may:

Issue a Correction

When an error or omission can be corrected without undermining the reliability or ethical acceptability of the article.

Publish an Expression of Concern

When serious unresolved concerns justify alerting readers while further assessment is ongoing.

Retract the Article

When serious ethical violations, unreliable findings, or other circumstances justify retraction under applicable publication ethics guidance.

Take No Further Action

When the concern is unsupported or satisfactorily resolved.

Where appropriate, the journal may cooperate with research institutions, ethics committees, or other competent authorities.

4. Implementation and Procedures

4.1. Ethical Considerations Section

As a proposed implementation requirement, the journal should require a dedicated section titled:

Ethical Approval and Consent

or

Ethical Considerations

The section should appear in a consistent location specified by the journal's manuscript template.

Authors should include relevant information concerning animal ethics approval, human research ethics approval, consent, confidentiality, and applicable exemptions.

4.2. Recommended Statements for Animal Research

Example A — Animal Ethics Approval Obtained

"All experimental procedures involving animals were reviewed and approved by the [Full Name of Animal Ethics Committee], [Institution], under approval number [Approval Number]. The study was conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national animal welfare requirements."

Example B — Formal Exemption Granted

"The [Full Name of Ethics Committee or Authorized Institutional Body] determined that this study was exempt from formal animal ethics review under [applicable policy or exemption reference]. All relevant animal welfare requirements were observed."

Example C — No Formal Approval Required Under Applicable Rules

"According to [identify the applicable regulation or institutional policy], formal animal ethics approval was not required for this study because [provide a specific justification]. The research was conducted in accordance with applicable animal welfare and research integrity requirements."

Authors must use only the statement that accurately reflects their research and supporting documentation.

4.3. Recommended Statements for Human Participant Research

Example A — Ethics Approval and Consent

"The study was approved by the [Full Name of Ethics Committee], [Institution], under approval number [Approval Number]. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection."

Example B — Ethics Exemption

"The [Full Name of Ethics Committee or Authorized Institutional Body] granted an exemption from formal ethics review under [reference number or applicable provision]. Participation was voluntary, and applicable consent and confidentiality requirements were followed."

Example C — No Human Participants

"This study did not involve human participants. Human research ethics approval and informed consent were therefore not applicable."

4.4. Editorial Screening

During initial manuscript screening, the editorial office should determine whether the research involves:

  • Live animals.

  • Animal-derived biological materials.

  • Human participants.

  • Identifiable personal information.

  • Confidential organizational or farm data.

  • Procedures requiring institutional or regulatory permission.

Where relevant, the editorial office should verify that an appropriate ethical statement is present.

Incomplete statements should be returned to the authors for clarification.

4.5. Verification of Ethical Documentation

The journal may request supporting documentation when necessary, including:

  • Ethics committee approval letters.

  • Formal exemption determinations.

  • Relevant research permits.

  • Animal welfare protocols.

  • Evidence of consent procedures.

  • Institutional permissions.

  • Documentation concerning the lawful use of confidential data.

The journal may contact the issuing authority when there is a legitimate reason to verify the authenticity or applicability of a document.

Sensitive documents must be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

4.6. Peer-Review Evaluation

Reviewers should assess the ethical adequacy of the research within their expertise.

For animal studies, reviewers should consider the appropriateness of experimental procedures, animal welfare safeguards, and reporting of ethical approval.

For human participant studies, reviewers should consider informed consent, privacy protection, and relevant ethical authorization.

Reviewers should not request access to confidential personal information unless the request is necessary, justified, and managed through appropriate editorial procedures.

4.7. Handling Ethical Concerns

When an ethical concern is identified, the editorial team should:

  1. Document the concern.

  2. Conduct an initial assessment.

  3. Request relevant clarification or evidence.

  4. Consult independent expertise when appropriate.

  5. Refer matters requiring formal investigation to the appropriate institution or authority.

  6. Determine the appropriate editorial response.

  7. Communicate the decision to relevant parties.

  8. Maintain appropriate records and follow-up.

The process should be fair, proportionate, and consistent with the journal's Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

4.8. Ethical Documentation and Recordkeeping

The journal should maintain secure records of relevant ethical declarations, approval documentation, editorial inquiries, and decisions.

Access should be restricted to authorized individuals.

Retention periods should comply with applicable institutional policies, privacy requirements, and relevant legal obligations.

4.9. Policy Review

The editorial team should periodically review this policy to reflect developments in animal welfare standards, human research ethics, data protection, and scholarly publishing guidance.

COPE resources