The Macedonian Veterinary Review (Mac Vet Rev
) reviews all the submitted papers. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. The Journal “Mac Vet Rev” recommend and accept 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.
When a manuscript is submitted in Macedonian Veterinary Review, it undergoes an initial prescreening by the Editor in chief and appropriate members of the Editorial Board in order to determine whether or not the paper fits the scope of the journal. After establishing that the manuscript meets the journal’s minimum standards for publication, the paper will undergo ithenticate softwer for detection of plagiarism and then it is subjected to a per-review process.
The Editor in chief nominate peer referees (at least three) upon the recommendation of the Editorial Board members. The Journal list of reviewers
is continually updating and expanding with new reviewers according their active participation in the evaluation process.
The peer-reviewers are blinded with respect to the name and their affiliations of the author(s). The papers in the Mac Vet Rev are reviewed in a double-blind manner in witch the author(s), as well 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.
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 are 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 weeks after submission of the manuscript, more time may be need to finalize the review process.
Accepted articles are published as Ahead of Print Articles
(electronic publications ahead of print) on Ahead of Print
as they become ready, and the web updated daily. Once published, articles are then be selected for a subsequent online and print issue.