All published articles in Animal Feed Technology Journal undergo strict peer review processes based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two referees. The ultimate purpose of peer review is to sustain the originality and quality of research work and separation of poor quality and plagiarized manuscripts. Peer review promises research excellence.
The exercise of peer review is to ensure that only good research paper is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vigorous role in keeping the high standards of the Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology Journal and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is completely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are inadequately original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
The Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology employs single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors during the process.
How the reviewer is selected?
Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is regularly being updated.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy or edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Personal opinions can be expressed in the reviewer confidential comments to Editor section.
Generally, the manuscript will be reviewed within 4-8 weeks. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed another expert opinion is sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the editor within 3-4 weeks. The Editor may request more than one revision of article.
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include precise comments by the reviewers. Editor's Decision is final.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Potential experts in the field, likely to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, may contact the editorial office by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, and provide their contact details and profile. Reviewers are finalized based on their profile and communicated for review process accordingly.