Peer review is an obligatory step in evaluation of manuscript quality to maintain a high scientific level of the journal. The final editorial decision about paper publication or rejection depends on the results of the peer review process. Peer reviews also help the author(s) improve the manuscript.
The received manuscripts undergo the initial control. “The Animal Biology” editorial board rejects manuscripts that are not relevant to the Aims & Scope and/or are not composed in compliance with requirements to the articles. The reason for rejection can also be a high level of non-original text (plagiarism) or revealing other malpractices.
The primary expert review of a scientific article is performed by the editor-in-chief or the executive editor. He also appoints two external peer-reviewers. The reviewers should be experts in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research.
The journal follows the practice of single blind peer review. That means that personal data of the author(s) (such as name and affiliation) are disclosed to the reviewer, but the same data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author(s). Communication between the corresponding author and the reviewer is conducted through the responsible secretary of the journal. In the peer-review process the author receives from the responsible secretary a copy of the standard form filled out by the reviewer with the data about the peer review author hidden.
After receiving the manuscript, the reviewer is given 20 days to consider it, prepare the peer review, collect the critical remarks and make a conclusion about the article publication or rejection. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers must evaluate the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article, theoretical and applied value of the performed research, correlation between the author’s conclusions and the existing scientific concepts and data, the authenticity and validity of the author’s conclusions, compliance with the scientific ethics; also to check the correctness of the given graphs and drawings, references to literary sources, the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific reporting. No personal criticism against the author(s) is admissible.
The reviewer prepares his answer on the standard review form provided by the editor. This standard form includes a list of criteria for manuscript evaluation, it also gives an opportunity to add an extended comment on disputed issues and requires a final conclusion for the manuscript:
a) to publish,
b) to publish after author’s revision, taking into account the critical remarks,
c) not to publish.
Such a reviewer’s decision must be clearly explained.
According to the reviewer’s feedback, the author makes corrections to the manuscript. If the author doesn’t agree with the reviewer’s opinion, he has the right to provide his response with arguments to the editor, which will be discussed at the editorial board meeting. The Editorial Council reserves the right to reject the article if the author is unable or unwilling to take critical remarks into account.
Editor also can refer the article to another specialist for additional review. Such decision is made in case when: there is an acute controversy of the statements expressed in the scientific article; the level of the previous expert assessment is not high enough; the reviewer waives evaluating the manuscript because the shortage of qualification in this area of research, the lack of time that makes his/her review impossible at the appointed time; there is a conflict of interests between the reviewer and the author(s) or organization which have submitted the paper.
The final decision on the manuscript publication is made by the Editorial Council and approved by the Scientific Council of the Institute of Animal Biology NAAS. The date of article acceptance is the date when the editor receives two positive recommendations for manuscript publication from the reviewers. The author is informed about the expected publication terms. In some cases, according to the decision of the Editorial Council and in agreement with the reviewers, the article can be published out of turn in the closest issue of the journal. The original peer review documents should be stored in the editorial office for at least three years.
