Peer Review Policy

ARSHI Veterinary Letters applies a single-anonymized peer review process, in which the identities of reviewers are concealed from the authors, while reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor to determine whether the submission is suitable for the journal’s scope and meets the basic standards of scientific quality and editorial requirements.

At this stage, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they:

  • fall outside the journal’s scope,

  • show insufficient scientific novelty or significance,

  • have major methodological or ethical concerns,

  • do not comply with the journal’s formatting and submission requirements,

  • contain substantial language issues that hinder scientific evaluation, or

  • show evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two and up to three independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • subject-matter expertise,

  • publication and research background,

  • absence of conflicts of interest, and

  • ability to provide an objective and timely evaluation.

The editorial office may invite additional reviewers if:

  • the initial reviews are significantly conflicting,

  • further specialist evaluation is required, or

  • the manuscript covers multidisciplinary aspects.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on several scientific and editorial criteria, including but not limited to:

  • originality and novelty of the work,

  • scientific relevance and contribution to veterinary science,

  • clarity of research objectives or case presentation,

  • appropriateness and rigor of methodology,

  • validity of results and interpretation,

  • quality and relevance of discussion,

  • appropriateness of statistical analysis, where applicable,

  • ethical compliance, including animal welfare and research ethics,

  • quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials,

  • clarity, coherence, and academic quality of writing, and

  • relevance and adequacy of references.

4. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

The final decision on a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ reports, the scientific merit of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards.

5. Revision Process

If revision is requested, authors are expected to submit:

  1. a revised manuscript, and

  2. a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer and editor comment clearly and systematically.

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • assessed directly by the editor, or

  • returned to one or more of the original reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of revisions required.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeline may result in administrative withdrawal of the manuscript unless an extension is formally requested and approved.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to ARSHI Veterinary Letters are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript content,

  • not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without editorial permission,

  • not use any unpublished data, interpretations, or findings for personal or professional advantage.

Editors and editorial staff are also required to preserve the confidentiality of all submissions and review communications.

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could influence their judgment. Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

  • recent collaboration with the authors,

  • institutional affiliation with the authors,

  • personal or professional relationships,

  • financial interests, or

  • direct academic competition.

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest will not be involved in the review or editorial decision-making process for the manuscript.

8. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide reviews that are:

  • objective,

  • constructive,

  • evidence-based, and

  • respectful in tone.

Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and are encouraged to identify:

  • relevant published work not cited by the authors,

  • possible methodological flaws,

  • ethical concerns,

  • overlap with previously published studies, and

  • any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or redundant publication.

9. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

To ensure editorial independence and transparency, manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or editorial board members are handled through a fully independent editorial process.

Such manuscripts will be assigned to an editor with no conflict of interest, and the submitting editor/board member will have no involvement in:

  • reviewer selection,

  • editorial discussion,

  • peer review management, or

  • final decision-making.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe it was based on a misunderstanding or factual error. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with a clear scientific justification.

The journal may:

  • review the original decision internally,

  • seek an additional independent opinion, or

  • uphold the original decision.

The Editor-in-Chief’s decision on appeals is final.

11. Integrity of the Review Process

The journal reserves the right to reject or retract manuscripts if there is evidence of:

  • manipulation of the peer review process,

  • falsified reviewer identities,

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest,

  • plagiarism,

  • duplicate submission/publication, or

  • other breaches of publication ethics.

ARSHI Veterinary Letters is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published articles.