• Home
• Archive
• Rules for Authors
• Editorial Board
• Certificate
• Contacts
• About the journal
• Review Policy and Procedure
• Conflict of interest, human and animal rights policy
• Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics Policy
• Procedure for reviewing complaints regarding violations of ethical standards
• Policy on the use of AI and technologies supporting it
• Retraction procedure
• Open Access Policy and Terms of Use of Copyrighted Materials
• Publication ethics and editorial policy of the publication

Peer Review Policy and Procedure

1. General Provisions

All materials submitted to the editorial office undergo mandatory peer review to select articles that meet the high standards of Journal for Veterinary Medicine, Biotechnology and Biosafety.

Peer review is carried out by members of the Editorial Board and independent external experts in the relevant fields of knowledge. The journal employs a double-blind review process: neither the author nor the expert knows each other's identity. All correspondence between reviewers and the author is conducted exclusively through the editorial office.

The main objective is to evaluate the scientific level of the article, its relevance, methodological reliability, and practical significance. The manuscript evaluation is conducted objectively, regardless of the authors' ethnic, gender, religious, or political affiliation.

2. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Experts are guided by the following criteria when analyzing materials:

• Relevance: the importance of the research for modern veterinary science and practice.
• Content and Scientific Novelty: whether the topic is disclosed according to the aim and whether the article contains new results.
• Reliability: the validity of the presented data and the correctness of the research methods.
• Ethics: compliance of the material with bioethical principles (animal welfare) and the absence of conflicts of interest.
• Uniqueness: all articles undergo a plagiarism check. Similarity is allowed up to 20% (text uniqueness must be at least 80%).

3. Peer Review Procedure

The manuscript review process consists of several stages:

1. Initial Screening: The editorial office evaluates the manuscript's compliance with formatting requirements and the journal's scope. At this stage, an article may be returned to the author for revision or plagiarism check.
2. Appointment of Experts: The Editor-in-Chief sends the anonymous manuscript to at least two specialists (a member of the Editorial Board and an independent expert).
3. Timeline: The interval from manuscript submission to the first decision usually ranges from 4 to 8 weeks.
4. Decision Making: Based on the experts' conclusions, the author may receive one of the following responses:
   • Accept for publication.
   • Revisions required (minor changes without re-review).
   • Re-review required (after significant major revisions).
   • Reject the manuscript (with stated reasons).

4. Rights and Responsibilities of the Parties

For Reviewers: The expert must disclose any potential conflict of interest. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for three years. Peer review is conducted on a confidential basis — information about the article must not be disclosed to third parties.

For Authors: In case of disagreement with the evaluation, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editor-in-Chief. The editorial office, in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) principles, is open to scientific discussion. However, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript if the author is unwilling to address critical remarks.

Final Decision: The decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's thematic plan. Articles approved for printing undergo technical and literary editing.