Peer-Review Process

Andalasian Livestock is dedicated to ensuring the quality and integrity of the research we publish. We employ a rigorous, blind peer review process to evaluate all manuscripts, with the goal of supporting scientific excellence and providing constructive feedback to authors.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Assessment

   • Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial team. At this stage, we assess whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scope, ethical standards, and basic quality requirements.
   • Manuscripts that do not align with our scope or basic requirements may be returned to the authors with constructive feedback or declined without external review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

   • Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
   • We use a blind peer review process, meaning that while reviewers are aware of the authorship, authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This approach helps maintain impartiality and encourages objective evaluations.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

   • Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:
     • Originality and Contribution: The significance and novelty of the research within the field of animal science.
     • Methodology and Rigor: The clarity, appropriateness, and reliability of the research methods used.
     • Results and Interpretation: The clarity of data presentation and the validity of the authors’ interpretations and conclusions.
     • Quality of Writing: The overall organization, language, and clarity of the manuscript.
   • Reviewers provide feedback on areas of strength as well as areas for improvement, offering constructive suggestions to help authors enhance their work.

4. Reviewers’ Recommendations

   • After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers submit their recommendations, which may include:
     • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
     • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes before it can be considered for publication.
     • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes and will be re-evaluated once revisions are made.
     • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality standards or scope and is unsuitable for publication.

5. Editorial Decision

   • The handling editor considers the reviewers' feedback and makes an initial decision on the manuscript. In cases where reviewer opinions differ significantly, a third reviewer may be consulted, or additional input may be sought from the editorial board.
   • Authors will receive a decision notification that includes all reviewer comments and recommendations to help them address any required revisions.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

   • If revisions are required, authors are given an opportunity to address reviewer comments and resubmit their revised manuscript. The revised submission is often reviewed by the original reviewers, who assess whether their comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

7. Final Decision

   • After revisions are approved, the handling editor will make a final decision on the manuscript. Once accepted, the manuscript moves to the production stage, where it is copy-edited, formatted, and prepared for publication.

Commitment to Quality and Ethical Review

Andalasian Livestock adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We are committed to transparency, confidentiality, and fairness in the peer review process and strive to provide timely, unbiased, and constructive feedback to all authors.

We thank our reviewers for their vital role in helping us maintain the integrity and scientific rigor of our journal.

If you have any questions regarding our peer review process, please feel free to contact our editorial office.