Editorial and Peer-Review Process
Open Veterinary Journal (OVJ) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and ethical editorial and peer-review process. The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated objectively and that editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, originality, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope.
1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment
All manuscripts submitted to OVJ undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.
The initial assessment may include evaluation of:
compliance with the journal's scope and article types;
scientific quality and relevance;
originality and potential contribution to veterinary science and animal health;
methodological appropriateness;
ethical compliance;
completeness of the submission;
compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines; and
potential concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential editorial or ethical requirements, or are otherwise unsuitable for further consideration may be rejected without external peer review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
OVJ operates a double-blind peer-review process.
Under this system, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the peer-review process, to the extent reasonably practicable.
Authors should therefore avoid including unnecessary identifying information in the anonymized manuscript and should follow the journal's instructions concerning preparation of files for double-blind review.
The double-blind system is intended to minimize potential bias and promote fair and impartial assessment of submitted manuscripts.
3. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant scientific field.
Reviewers are selected according to their subject-matter expertise, experience, independence, and availability. Editors should make reasonable efforts to avoid selecting reviewers who have actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or research described in the manuscript.
Reviewers are expected to:
evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively;
assess the scientific validity, methodology, originality, clarity, and significance of the work;
identify important relevant literature where appropriate;
disclose any conflicts of interest;
maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated materials;
avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage; and
provide their review within the requested timeframe whenever possible.
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or communicate directly with authors about a manuscript under review unless expressly authorized by the journal.
4. Editorial Evaluation and Decision-Making
Reviewer reports are considered carefully by the responsible editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.
The responsible editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer comments, authors' responses where applicable, and any other relevant information before reaching a decision.
Possible editorial decisions include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
The editor may request additional peer review when reviewer reports are substantially inconsistent, when important scientific concerns remain unresolved, or when additional subject expertise is required.
The final editorial decision is the responsibility of the designated editor and is based on the overall scientific and ethical assessment of the manuscript.
5. Revision of Manuscripts
When revision is invited, authors should address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining how each substantive issue has been addressed.
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when necessary.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript remains subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, further peer review.
6. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
OVJ maintains editorial independence from commercial, financial, institutional, and other external influences.
Editorial decisions are based on scientific and ethical considerations and are not influenced by an author's ability or inability to pay an Article Processing Charge (APC), institutional affiliation, nationality, geographic location, personal characteristics, or commercial interests.
Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
An editor must not participate in the editorial handling or decision-making of a manuscript when the editor has a significant conflict of interest. Such manuscripts should be assigned to an independent editor whenever possible.
7. Confidentiality
The identities of reviewers participating in the double-blind peer-review process are kept confidential.
Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated information as confidential. Unpublished information contained in a manuscript must not be used for personal, academic, or professional purposes outside the legitimate peer-review process.
Editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and other confidential materials must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals.
8. Ethical and Research Integrity Assessment
OVJ expects all manuscripts to comply with recognized standards of responsible research and publication.
Where appropriate, manuscripts must provide information regarding:
research ethics approval;
animal welfare and ethical treatment;
informed consent;
human participant protection;
conflicts of interest;
funding;
data availability;
clinical trial registration;
relevant reporting standards; and
other ethical requirements applicable to the study.
OVJ may request supporting documentation when necessary to verify ethical or research-integrity requirements.
9. Plagiarism and Publication Misconduct
OVJ uses iThenticate to identify potential plagiarism, excessive textual similarity, duplicate publication, and related concerns.
Suspected cases of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research or publication misconduct are investigated in accordance with the journal's publication-ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.
Depending on the circumstances and the stage at which the concern is identified, editorial action may include requesting clarification, rejection of the manuscript, correction of a published article, publication of an Expression of Concern, or retraction.
10. Timeliness of Peer Review
OVJ seeks to provide authors with timely editorial decisions while maintaining appropriate standards of scientific evaluation.
Editors monitor the progress of manuscripts through the editorial process and may invite alternative reviewers when an assigned reviewer is unable to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe.
The journal does not compromise the quality or independence of peer review solely to accelerate publication.
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, misunderstanding, procedural problem, or relevant information materially affected the decision.
Appeals should provide a clear and reasoned explanation and, where appropriate, supporting evidence.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics, or journal procedures are reviewed by an appropriate editorial representative who is independent of the matter whenever reasonably possible.
12. Post-Publication Review and Corrections
Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the integrity of the published scholarly record.
OVJ welcomes substantive post-publication concerns supported by appropriate evidence. Where necessary, the journal may investigate concerns relating to published articles and may publish a correction, clarification, Expression of Concern, or retraction in accordance with the circumstances and applicable publication-ethics standards.
13. Editorial Board Oversight and Continuous Improvement
The OVJ Editorial Board periodically reviews the editorial and peer-review process to identify opportunities for improvement and to ensure continued alignment with recognized international standards and developments in scholarly publishing.
The journal may revise its editorial procedures, reviewer-selection practices, ethical safeguards, and publication policies when necessary to strengthen the quality, transparency, fairness, and integrity of the publication process.
14. Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Peer Review
Through its double-blind peer-review system, independent editorial decision-making, appropriate reviewer selection, confidentiality requirements, ethical oversight, and research-integrity procedures, Open Veterinary Journal is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, and trustworthy process for evaluating and publishing veterinary research.
The journal's objective is to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific validity, ethical conduct, originality, and relevance while maintaining the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.
