Reviewer Policies
1. Reviewers Guidelines
Reviewers are essential to the peer review process at African Journal of Poultry Farming and must follow these specific guidelines to provide fair, impartial, and constructive evaluations:
1.1 Manuscript Evaluation
- Scientific Rigor: Reviewers should assess the scientific quality, novelty, and originality of the manuscript. They should ensure that the research is robust, the methodology is appropriate, and the conclusions are well-supported by the data.
- Clarity and Structure: Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript’s organization, clarity of expression, and logical flow. Manuscripts should be clearly written and accessible to a broad academic audience, without compromising on technical accuracy.
- Relevance to the Journal: Reviewers should determine if the manuscript is relevant to the scope of African Journal of Poultry Farming, which focuses on poultry farming research, livestock health, production systems, and associated agricultural technologies.
- Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should check for any ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification. They should verify that the authors have followed ethical guidelines in handling human or animal data and have received necessary institutional approvals.
1.2 Feedback to Authors
- Constructive Criticism: Feedback should be constructive and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid dismissive or unhelpful comments. When suggesting revisions, reviewers should provide specific examples or recommendations for improvement.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and refrain from disclosing its contents to anyone outside of the review process. Reviewers are also prohibited from using information obtained during the review for personal gain or to benefit their own research.
- Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their reviews within the assigned timeframe. If reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, they must notify the editorial team as soon as possible.
1.3 Recommendation to Editors
Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation based on their evaluation:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without major revisions.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript is of good quality but requires minor adjustments or clarifications before publication.
- Major Revision: Significant revisions are needed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication, either due to significant flaws in the methodology, unethical practices, or lack of contribution to the field.
1.4 Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
- Impartiality: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based solely on the scientific merit of the work, without any bias or prejudice based on the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document, not discussing or sharing it with others. The manuscript should not be used for personal or professional gain.
- Integrity: Reviewers must ensure that their review is honest, thorough, and objective. Any conflicts of interest or potential biases must be disclosed, and reviewers must avoid situations where personal or professional relationships could influence their evaluation.
2. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers)
To maintain the highest standards of objectivity, transparency, and ethical conduct, African Journal of Poultry Farming requires all reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and financial relationships that could influence their review process. These disclosures help ensure that the peer review process remains fair and unbiased.
2.1 Definition of Conflict of Interest (COI)
A conflict of interest exists when a reviewer’s personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors, institutions, or sponsors of a manuscript could influence their impartiality or judgment. The following are examples of conflicts of interest:
- Financial Interest: Any financial relationships with the authors or their institutions, such as grants, funding, consultancy, or financial stakes.
- Personal or Professional Relationships: Close personal relationships (e.g., familial, romantic) or professional relationships (e.g., collaboration or mentorship) that could create bias.
- Competing Research: A reviewer who has conducted similar research or has a competing interest with the subject matter of the manuscript may have an inherent bias.
- Recent Collaboration: Reviewers who have recently worked with the authors of the manuscript or have published with them in the last few years should disclose this connection to avoid any potential conflicts.
2.2 Reviewer Disclosure Requirements
- Prior to Accepting Review: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should decline the review invitation, and the editorial team will assign the manuscript to another suitable reviewer.
- During the Review Process: If a conflict of interest arises during the review process or if the reviewer realizes they have an undisclosed conflict, they must inform the editorial board immediately. The reviewer may be asked to withdraw from the review.
- Transparency: If the reviewer has no conflicts of interest, they should explicitly state this in their review comments. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should provide a clear explanation, and the editorial team will make a decision on whether the reviewer can proceed with the evaluation.
2.3 Management of Conflicts of Interest
- Independent Assessment: If a conflict of interest is identified, the manuscript will be reassigned to another reviewer without bias or impact on the manuscript’s evaluation. The editorial team ensures that the review process remains impartial and does not favor any party.
- Disclosure of Financial Relationships: Reviewers are encouraged to disclose any financial relationships with organizations that may benefit from the publication of the manuscript. These may include research funding sources, industry collaborations, or any other financial ties that may be perceived as influencing their judgment.
2.4 Ethical and Professional Integrity
- Avoiding Bias: Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively, free from personal or professional biases. If a reviewer feels they cannot assess a manuscript impartially due to prior relationships with the authors or any other potential conflicts, they must withdraw from the review process.
- Confidentiality: Any information gained through the peer review process must be kept confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from discussing the manuscript or using the data for any personal or professional gain.
