Peer Reviewer Process

Buletin Veteriner Udayana is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and research quality. To ensure a fair, rigorous, transparent, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts, the journal applies a structured peer review process based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Peer Review Workflow

[Manuscript Submission]
↓
[1. Initial Editorial Screening] ── (Rejected / Revision Required) ──► [Author Notified]
↓
(Passes Initial Screening)
↓
[2. Reviewer Selection and Assignment] ──► (Qualified Reviewers Assigned)
↓
[3. Double-Blind Peer Review] ──► (Evaluation and Constructive Feedback)
↓
[4. Editorial Decision] ──► [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]
↓
[5. Revision, Final Evaluation, and Publication]

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements.

Originality and Plagiarism Check

The manuscript is screened for originality, potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, and appropriate citation of relevant and primary sources.

Scope and Submission Guidelines

The Editor evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal's focus and scope and complies with the journal's submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and manuscript structure.

Ethical and Safety Considerations

The Editor checks whether the manuscript appropriately reports ethical considerations, including research involving human or animal subjects, as well as any potential hazards associated with chemicals, procedures, equipment, or experimental activities.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic standards, ethical requirements, or submission criteria may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

2. Selection and Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified peer reviewers.

Expertise Matching

The Editor selects reviewers with appropriate academic and professional expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The Editor takes reasonable steps to ensure that reviewers have no financial, personal, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the manuscript that could compromise the objectivity of the review.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

Buletin Veteriner Udayana applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to the extent possible.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage without the author's permission.

Double-Blind Review

Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript. If a reviewer becomes aware of the authors' identity and believes that this creates a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must promptly notify the Editor.

Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively and based on the scientific and academic merits of the manuscript. Reviewers should provide clear assessments supported by appropriate reasoning and follow the journal's review guidelines.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should provide constructive and specific recommendations that can help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific rigor of their manuscript. Reviewers should distinguish between additional investigations that are essential to support the manuscript's claims and those that are merely recommended to strengthen or extend the study.

Ethical Concerns and Source Acknowledgement

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited and notify the Editor of any suspected ethical or publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate data manipulation, or other serious ethical concerns.

Promptness

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is required, reviewers should promptly inform the Editor. Reviewers who are unable to complete the evaluation within a reasonable timeframe should notify the Editor so that another reviewer can be assigned.

4. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript is made by the Editor or Editorial Board based on the peer-review reports, scientific quality, originality, relevance, and overall suitability of the manuscript for the journal.

Decision Criteria

Editorial decisions are based on the validity and quality of the research, its significance to the journal's readers, the reviewers' recommendations, compliance with the journal's policies, and applicable ethical and legal requirements, including those concerning copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Possible Outcomes

Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions.

Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited revisions or clarification before it can be accepted for publication.

Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards for publication.

A decision to request revisions does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be subject to further editorial assessment or peer review.

Fair and Unbiased Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based solely on the intellectual and scientific content of the manuscript. Decisions must not be influenced by the authors' sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics. The journal upholds the principles of editorial independence, fairness, and impartiality throughout the review and decision-making process.

5. Revision, Final Evaluation, and Publication

Authors are responsible for responding adequately and clearly to the reviewers' comments and submitting a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the journal.

Before publication, authors must ensure that all listed co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.

Correction and Retraction

If a significant error or inaccuracy is identified after an editorial decision or publication, the authors must promptly notify the Editor and cooperate with the journal in taking appropriate corrective action. Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, the journal may publish a correction, issue an expression of concern, or retract the article in accordance with applicable publication ethics principles.