Peer Review Process

 

Peer Review Process

The Direct Research Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (DRJVMAS)  (ISSN 2734-2166) maintains a transparent, fair, and rigorous double-blind peer review system to uphold the highest standards of scholarly publishing in agricultural and food science research.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office to ensure:

  • The content aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.
  • The manuscript adheres to the journal’s submission guidelines.
  • The research meets the basic standards of scientific quality and originality.
    Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external review.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the preliminary screening are assigned to at least two qualified independent reviewers who possess relevant subject expertise. The review process follows a double-blind principle—both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation to promote impartiality and fairness.

3. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Accuracy and clarity of data presentation and interpretation
  • Relevance and significance to the field of agriculture and food science
  • Logical structure and clarity of expression

Reviewers provide detailed comments and a recommendation to the editor, choosing among:

  • Accept as is
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

4. Author Revision

Authors receiving reviewer comments are required to revise their manuscripts accordingly and submit a detailed response letter addressing all comments. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the specified period. If necessary, the revised paper may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers to confirm that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on:

  • Reviewers’ recommendations
  • The authors’ response to reviewer comments
  • The overall quality and contribution of the manuscript

The possible editorial decisions include acceptance, revision, or rejection. Authors are promptly notified of the editorial outcome.

6. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

DRJAFS strictly adheres to international best practices in scholarly publishing ethics. All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality of the materials they assess.

7. Timeliness and Transparency

The journal strives to ensure a timely and transparent review process. Authors are kept informed of the status of their manuscripts at each stage, and every effort is made to deliver fair and constructive evaluations that improve the scientific quality of published work.