Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.44

  • SJR .282 (2022)

  • Impact Factor .427 (2022)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
ARCC reviewer's ensures that all the articles published in a ARCC journals follow the majority of the publication standards. This process not only requires in-depth scientific knowledge about a certain subject but also a lot of devotion to patiently deal with it.

At Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) double blind peer-review process has been followed from last 50 years to maintain the quality of the journals and our reviewers ensure this by devoting quality time and valuable feedback on each manuscript submitted. 

Therefore, ARCC journals give importance to the role of reviewers as it is the only method of ensuring that the article contains the desired and useful information in it.

ARCC Journals is having Esteemed Reviewer’s panel of more than 5000 senior scale professionals from all around the globe.

Going through the manuscripts to create an extensive and unbiased report is mainly taken care of by the reviewer.

Sometimes, a reviewer has to distinguish the manuscripts also so that any kind of incorrect research can be avoided at the time of publishing.

This is of huge importance for the scientific community and the authorship. At ARCC journals, a reviewer not only works closely with the author and the editor but also with other reviewers who work on the same research or manuscripts.

As making sure that all the factors are working in proper coordination is of utmost importance, peer-reviewing requires proper time and systematic procedures of reviewing.

Suitable comments and suggestions from the reviewers make the article even more defined and useful for the readers.
The main job of the reviewers is to go through the research papers submitted by authors for publishing.

Their prime goal is to find inconsistencies in those papers and give their valuable opinion in an article. After the thorough assessment of the manuscripts, they have to report the changes or enhancements (if any) to the author in a written report.

Their feedback must be unbiased and devoid of any conflict of interest and any unethical demerits found must be reported to the author with proper and enough recommendations.

The peer reviewers must make sure that their suggestions aren’t personal, informal, or unprofessional. As well as the reports must be given as constructively as possible.

In the process of reviewing, two major factors must be taken into account – the language and confidentiality of the article.

While most authors meditate about their scholarly knowledge, the secrecy of their work is of prime importance. Any illegal use or the revelation of manuscripts is not permitted. It’s equal to the breach of confidence that the author puts in the reviewer.

Secondly, if the researched papers based on any scientific theory aren’t properly drafted, the readers will find it very difficult to read.
The role of the peer-reviewer suggests the responsibility the reviewer holds towards the editor.

The editor is an important decision-maker of the publication so the reviewer must make sure to facilitate him fully in writing great articles.

As millions of researches are submitted every day, time is the biggest key in journal publication. Timely notification from the reviewer to the editor helps the editor a lot in completing the article on time.

Various reputed institutions all over India have set a clear set of guidelines for journal publication. These guidelines help the reviewer to report immediately to the editor in case there is a financial conflict of interest.

And the directives from these guidelines advise the reviewer to give constructive and insightful views. Even if there is a critique in the reviewing documents, it should be informative and helpful.

This can be achieved by providing extra information to the editor along with the proposed references. This helps the journal editor create high-quality articles for the readers.

Thus it’s important to base the recommendations on scientific merits while remaining within the scope of publication guidelines.
Editors often with the help of electronic databases of reviewers maintained by their journal’s offices, select reviewers whose specialization matches the topic of the manuscript perfectly and invite them for the paper’s review.

The editors also take into consideration the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer by their journal so as not to overwhelm any one expert.
The material which is under review must not be shared or talked about anyone outside the process of review unless necessary and given consent by the editor. Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the ARCC website.

The work submitted for peer review is a highly privileged communication that should be kept in discretion, being mindful to protect the author’s identity and work.

Constructive Criticism
The comments of the reviewer should appreciate the positive aspects of the material under review, identify the negative ones in a constructive manner, and suggest the improvements required. This process if not followed properly leaves the author confused and directionless about the submitted work.

A reviewer must explain and support his/her judgment clearly enough that the authors and editors can understand the comments as correctly as possible.

Reviewers who understand that their specialty on the subject of the manuscript is limited are responsible to make their level of capabilities clear to the editor.

Reviewers are not required to be specialists in every element of a manuscript’s content, but they should accept a project only if they have proper experience to provide an authoritative evaluation.

Impartiality and Integrity
The comments and conclusions of Reviewer should be based on an objective and unbiased assessment of the studies be it personal or professional.

All comments by the reviewers should be based exclusively on the scientific merit of the paper, its authenticity, and quality of writing along with the relevance to the journal’s mission and scope, irrespective of the ethnic origin, race, religion, sex, or citizenship of the authors.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
The review system should be created to lessen the actual or assumed bias on the part of the reviewer.

If reviewers have any interest that might affect the objective review in any way, they should either reject the role of reviewer or reveal their conflict of interest to the editor and take suggestions on how to address it in the best way possible.

Timeliness and Responsiveness
Reviewers are responsible for acting swiftly, complying to the instructions for a review’s completion, and submitting it in a timely and proper manner. Failure to follow this affects the review process severely so every effort must be made to finish the review within the time frame.

If because of any reason, it’s not possible to meet the review’s deadline, the reviewer should quickly reject to perform the review or should inquire whether or not some adjustment can be made in regard to the deadline.

Examples of Reviewer Impropriety
  • Presenting the facts in a review in the wrong manner.
  • Delaying the review process unnecessarily.
  • Criticizing a competitor’s work unfairly.
  • Breaching the secrecy of the review.
  • Suggesting changes that appear to support the reviewer’s own work.
  • Misusing confidential information for personal motives.
  • Stealing ideas or texts from a manuscript under review.
  • Including personal criticism of the author.
  • Failing to reveal a conflict of interest that would have shunned the reviewer from the procedure.
ARCC journals find it useful to thank reviewers for their dedicated volunteer efforts. This may take the form of the reviewers that are listed in the journal on a regular basis.

Reviewers are important to us; ARCC aims to reward them for the work they do.
  • ARCC put on reviewers personalized profile page on website.
  • If a reviewer has completed at least two reviews, they become a ‘Recognized Reviewer’ and ARCC award them with a 'Reviewer Excellence Certificate’.
  • If a reviewer has completed at least ten reviews in two years, they become an ‘Outstanding Reviewer’ and 'recommended for Executive Editorial Board Member or Editorial Board Member’ for ARCC Journals.
To sum it all up
A Reviewer:
  • Ensures the standards of the scientific process by being a part of the peer review system.
  • Maintains the quality of the journal by identifying invalid research.
  • Fulfills a sense of responsibility to the community and their expertise in research.
  • Develops relationships with esteemed colleagues and their journals, and assists them in getting more opportunities to join an editorial board.
  • Prevents unethical practices by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other issues.