Peer Review Policy

Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS) evaluates every manuscript that passes initial screening through independent peer review. The process follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Its purpose is to help the editors decide which manuscripts to publish and to help authors improve their work.

Type of review

HAJAS uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Each manuscript sent for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Before a manuscript is sent out, the editorial office removes information that could reveal the authors. Reviewers are asked not to try to find out who the authors are, and to tell the editor if they think they know.

Editorial workflow

Submission. The author submits the manuscript through the online submission system of this website (see the Author Guidelines).
Initial screening. The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor checks fit with the Focus and Scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, the ethical statements, and originality, including a Turnitin similarity check.
Assignment. The manuscript is assigned to an Editor, who invites at least two reviewers.
Peer review. Reviewers assess the manuscript and send a report and a recommendation to the Editor.
Editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief, with the handling Editor, decides on the basis of the reports and the quality of the manuscript.
Author revision. Authors revise the manuscript and respond to each comment. The revised manuscript may go back to the same reviewers or to new ones.
Final decision. The editors assess the revised manuscript and make the final decision.
Production. Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, typeset, proofread, and published.

Initial screening and desk rejection

The editors may reject a manuscript without external review when it does not meet the basic requirements of the journal. A desk rejection is an editorial decision based on suitability, scholarly quality, and compliance with the journal’s requirements. The manuscript is not sent to external reviewers. Common grounds are:

Outside the scope: the topic does not fit the Focus and Scope.
Insufficient originality or contribution: the manuscript has no clear research gap, novelty, or contribution to the field.
Major weaknesses: the study design, methods, or analysis have serious weaknesses that ordinary revision is unlikely to fix.
Non-compliance: the manuscript is incomplete or clearly does not follow the Author Guidelines.
Problematic similarity: the similarity check shows substantial inappropriate overlap with other work.
Ethical or integrity concerns: required ethical approval or statements are missing, or there are concerns about research integrity.
Promotional content: the manuscript is mainly promotional or commercial.

Reviewer selection

Reviewers are chosen for their expertise in the subject of the manuscript, their independence, and the absence of a conflict of interest. A reviewer who lacks the expertise, cannot review within the time given, or has a conflict of interest must tell the editor and decline the invitation. Reviewers are named only in the master list on the Reviewers page, never per issue or per volume.

Review criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following points.

Originality and contribution to tropical farm animal science.
Soundness of the study design, methods, and statistical analysis.
Whether the data are presented accurately and support the conclusions.
Clarity, organization, and language.
Compliance with ethical standards, including animal welfare approval and the required statements.
Appropriate and current references.

Review timeline

Editorial decisions are normally communicated to the authors 30 to 90 days after online submission, by email or through the online system. Authors can follow the status of the manuscript in the online submission system. Reviewers are given a time frame to complete the review, and authors are asked to return a revised manuscript within the time set in the decision letter.

Similarity check

Manuscripts are screened with Turnitin at submission and after revision. If the similarity exceeds 25%, the authors must rewrite the affected text. A manuscript whose similarity cannot be reduced below this level is rejected. The editors read the similarity report and do not treat the percentage alone as proof of plagiarism. See the Plagiarism Policy.

Editorial decisions

The handling editor considers the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses, the quality of the manuscript, and its relevance to the journal. The possible decisions are:

Accept: the manuscript is accepted as it is or with minor revision.
Revisions required: the authors must revise the manuscript and resubmit it for further review.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the standards of the journal, or serious problems cannot be resolved.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an editor authorized by the journal. Decisions are based on academic merit and the reviewers’ reports. They are free from undue influence by the publisher, sponsors, authors, or commercial interests. HAJAS does not offer fast-track publication that guarantees acceptance. A Letter of Acceptance is not issued before the manuscript has been accepted.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Review the manuscript objectively and with reasons, without personal criticism of the authors.
Keep the manuscript and the review confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished material.
Declare any conflict of interest and decline the review when the conflict cannot be managed.
Tell the editor about any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other misconduct.
Point out relevant published work that the authors have not cited, but do not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless it is truly needed for scientific reasons.
Do not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools at any stage of the review (see the Policy on Generative AI).

Responsibilities of authors

Answer every reviewer comment point by point and explain each change, or give a scientific reason for any point on which they disagree.
Return the revised manuscript within the time set by the editors.
Do not contact reviewers or try to identify them.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Editors and the editorial office do not discuss a manuscript with anyone outside the review process. The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.

Manuscripts by editors

Manuscripts from the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or editorial board members are handled by an editor who is independent of the author. They go through the same review as all other manuscripts, and the author takes no part in the decision.

Withdrawal of a manuscript

An author who wants to withdraw a manuscript before publication must send a written request to the editorial office, with the reason and the agreement of all co-authors. Requests are considered case by case, and authors are encouraged to send them as early as possible. The manuscript must not be submitted elsewhere while the request is pending, and withdrawal takes effect only when the editorial office confirms it. After publication, withdrawal is no longer possible, and concerns are handled under the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Discussion policy.

Appeals

Authors who disagree with a decision can file an appeal as described on the Publication Ethics page. An appeal should explain, with evidence, why the decision should be reconsidered.