Peer-review Policy

Peer Review Statement

The Macedonian Veterinary Review (Mac Vet Rev) reviews all submitted manuscripts. The publication of manuscripts is subject to the approval of referees and in agreement with the Editorial and Advisory Board’s opinions.

Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review double-blind process. Macedonian Veterinary Review use Manuscript Manager editorial and peer review system to receive and to review all submitted manuscripts.

Macedonian Veterinary Review recommends and accepts the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers where all basic principles and standards are described and to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process.


Peer Review Process

When a manuscript is submitted in Macedonian Veterinary Review, it undergoes an initial pre-screening by the Editor in chief and appropriate members of the Editorial board in order to determine whether the paper fits the scope of the journal. If manuscript meets the journal’s minimum standards for publication, the paper undergo to iThenticate software for detection of plagiarism. The papers that will pass the criteria of plagiarism are subjected for future per-review process.

The Editor in chief nominates peer referees (at least three) upon the recommendation of the Deputy Editor, Editorial and Advisory board’s members. The Journal list of reviewers is continually updating and expanding with new reviewers according their active participation in the evaluation process. The referees are carefully selected from among qualified scientists in the international scientific community.

The papers in the Mac Vet Rev are reviewed in a double-blind manner in which the author(s), as well as their affiliations of the manuscript are unknown to the reviewer, who remains also anonymous. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. The peer-reviewers are blinded with respect to the name and their affiliations of the author(s).

The submitted manuscripts are sent to the referees together with the Instructions for reviewers.

Acceptance of the manuscript is decided, based on the critiques and recommended decision of the referees. A referee's decision is made as "Accept", "Accept after revision" and "Reject". If there is marked discrepancy in the decisions between the referees or in opinions between the author and referee(s), the Editor in chief may send the manuscript to another referee for additional comments and recommended decision. Three repeated decisions of "Accept after revision" are regarded as "Reject".

The positively reviewed manuscript is returned back to the corresponding author with comments and recommended revisions. Name and individual decisions of the referees are not transmitted to the author.

Revisions are usually requested to take account of criticism and comments made by referees. Failure to resubmit the revised manuscript within four (4) weeks is regarded as a withdrawal. Corresponding author must indicate clearly, what alterations have been made in response to the referees comments point by point. Acceptable reasons should be given for noncompliance with any recommendation of the referees.

The peer review process may in general take four (4) weeks after submission of the manuscript, more time may be need to finalize the review process.

Accepted articles have DOI numbers obtained by Sciendo and are published as Ahead of Print as they become ready, and the web updated daily. Once published, articles are then selected for a subsequent online and print issue.