Peer Review Process

Guideline for Reviewers

Rigorous, constructive peer review is essential to JAVS. Thank you for contributing your expertise to advance agriculture and veterinary sciences.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Please consider three questions before accepting:

Expertise Is the manuscript’s topic within your primary area(s) of expertise? Conflict of Interest Any personal, professional, or financial relationship that could bias your review? Time Can you dedicate the time needed for a thorough review within the deadline?

Structuring Your Review

JAVS does not impose a rigid format, but a thorough review typically includes:

  • Executive Summary — concise overview of main findings, strengths, and weaknesses.
  • Major Issues — significant flaws in design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation. Articulate concerns and suggest remedies.
  • Minor Issues — clarifications, corrections, or improvements (presentation, language, references).
  • Constructive Feedback — phrased to help authors improve, even when recommending rejection.
  • Confidential Comments to the Editor — sensitive concerns that should not be shared with authors.

Key Aspects for Evaluation

Criterion What to Assess
Novelty & Significance Does the work address a significant gap and advance the field?
Title & Abstract Accurate, engaging, and representative of the manuscript?
Theoretical Framework Sound and appropriately applied? Literature adequately contextualised?
Impact & Value Potential impact on peers, policymakers, or practitioners.
Methodological Rigour Design, data collection, analysis — valid, robust, reproducible?
Clarity of Language Clear, concise English; accurate scientific terminology.
Visuals Figures and tables — essential, well-labelled, high quality.
Results & Interpretation Accurate, objective, supported by data; limitations acknowledged.
References Relevant, current, accurately cited; reflective of the field.

Your Recommendation

Accept
High quality; ready to publish.
 Minor Revision
Merit, with small points to address.
 Major Revision
Potential, but significant flaws.
 Reject
Significant shortcomings; not suitable.

Confidentiality & Conflicts of Interest

Confidentiality. Manuscripts must be treated as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or reuse content. If consultation with a colleague is necessary, obtain prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief and disclose their name in Comments to the Editor.

Conflicts of Interest. Decline a review if you have a financial interest in the research, prior discussions with the authors, or cannot provide an impartial evaluation.

If circumstances prevent you from meeting the agreed deadline, please contact the Editorial Office to arrange an alternative date.