The journal Animal Biology conducts peer review of all scientific manuscripts to ensure their high scientific quality, reliability, relevance, and compliance with the journal’s scope. The peer review policy is based on the principles of academic integrity, independence of editorial decisions, confidentiality of the editorial process, and impartial expert evaluation.
The journal Animal Biology applies single-blind peer review: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors; all communication takes place through the Editorial Office.
Stages of Manuscript Evaluation
1. Manuscript Submission
The author submits the manuscript to the Editorial Office in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts undergo initial screening by the Editorial Office for:
-
compliance with the journal’s scope;
-
compliance with structural and formatting requirements;
-
non-original text, plagiarism, and other possible violations.
Possible outcomes of this stage:
-
rejection without peer review — if the manuscript does not comply with the journal’s requirements or scope, or if violations are identified;
-
referral for external peer review.
3. Selection of Reviewers
The scientific editor / deputy editor conducts an expert assessment and appoints two external reviewers — specialists in the subject area of the manuscript who have scientific publications in the relevant field.
Reviewers are required to inform the Editorial Office of any conflict of interest and to decline the review if such a conflict exists.
4. Peer Review
After receiving the manuscript, the reviewer is given up to 20 calendar days to prepare the review.
During evaluation, the reviewer assesses the following aspects of the manuscript:
-
relevance and significance of the research problem;
-
methodological correctness and validity of the conclusions;
-
consistency with current scientific data;
-
compliance with research and publication ethics;
-
quality and correctness of tables, figures, and references;
-
logic and clarity of presentation.
Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. The manuscript and review materials are confidential: reviewers must not disclose information or use it for personal purposes. This is consistent with the ethical guidelines for reviewers provided by COPE.
5. Decision Based on Peer Review
The reviewer completes a standard review form and recommends one of the following decisions:
-
accept for publication;
-
accept after revision;
-
reject.
The recommendation must be clearly justified.
6. Author Revision and Response to Comments
The author receives the review without disclosure of the reviewer’s identity and:
-
makes the necessary corrections to the manuscript;
-
prepares a response to the comments, preferably in a Comment–Response format, with references to manuscript pages or lines.
If the author disagrees with specific comments, they may provide a reasoned explanation; the matter is considered by the Editorial Board.
7. Additional Review, If Necessary
The Editorial Office may send the manuscript for additional review by another expert in the following cases:
-
the manuscript contains substantially debatable statements;
-
the previous review report is insufficiently detailed or unclear;
-
the reviewer declines the review due to time constraints or lack of relevant expertise;
-
a conflict of interest involving the reviewer is identified.
8. Final Decision and Date of Acceptance
The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board and approved by the Academic Council of the Institute of Animal Biology of NAAS.
The date of acceptance of the article is the date on which the Editorial Office receives a positive reviewer’s recommendation for publication.
The author is informed of the expected publication timeframe.
Approximate Review Timeframes
Initial editorial screening depends on the workload of the Editorial Office.
Peer review: up to 20 calendar days per reviewer.
Author revision depends on the scope of corrections and comments; the timeframe is recommended to be agreed with the Editorial Office.
Additional peer review may be conducted if necessary.
Confidentiality and Storage of Reviews
Original review reports are kept by the Editorial Office for at least three years. Peer review is a confidential process, and manuscript materials may not be used by third parties without permission.
Exceptions
The journal may publish conference abstracts and proceedings. Requirements for the preparation, submission, evaluation, and publication of such materials may be determined by the organizing committee of the relevant conference in agreement with the Editorial Office of the journal.
