Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Manuscripts submitted to Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology journals are evaluated entirely on the basis of their scientific merit. The journal is not a paid publication; however, nominal article processing charges are applied for every accepted manuscript. All possible actions are taken to maintain the highest standards of publication ethics and to prevent malpractices. Authors who submit papers to our journal indicate that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication anywhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own original work that has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works and if the authors have used the works of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted. Moreover, the service provider (Indianjournals.com) for this journal performs plagiarism check of every submitted manuscript.

Responsibilities of Editors

The Editorial Board of the Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology is responsible for taking a decision regarding publishing the articles and have complete freedom and power to reject/accept an article. The evaluation of articles is made on the basis of their scholarly and intellectual content without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship of the authors. The journal follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to exercise caution and ensure that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the articles they accept/reject. The editors and the editorial staff follow strict privacy and are required not to reveal any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author. Authors are encouraged to correct the errors which are found during the process of review while keeping the secrecy of the reviewers.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Editorial decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are to be conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject matter of the research. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge, may also be brought to the knowledge of the editors. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of intellectual nature and must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not agree to review the manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.

Responsibilities of the Authors

Authors are required to present an accurate account of the original research work and also an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient details of the updated literature and references. It is expected that all the authors have significantly contributed to the research. Authors are required to certify that the submitted work is original and has not been published anywhere, and if the authors have used the work of others the same has been properly cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions are required to be followed. Copyright materials should be reproduced only with permission and due acknowledgement. Authors are not expected to submit articles describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one journal simultaneously is an unethical practice and unacceptable. The corresponding author is required to ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All sources of financial support should also be disclosed.

Peer Review Statement

All published articles in Animal Feed Technology Journal undergo strict peer review processes based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two referees. The ultimate purpose of peer review is to sustain the originality and quality of research work and separation of poor quality and plagiarized manuscripts. Peer review promises research excellence.

Paper Publication Process

• The Author writes a research article and submits it.
• The Editor does the initial screening and forwards it to the Reviewers.
• Reviewers review the manuscript according to the guidelines provided and verify the quality of research.
• The article is returned to the Editor along with a recommendation to either reject the article, revise it or accept it.
• The Editor drafts a decision to be sent to the Author.
• The article is returned to the Author along with the reviewer's feedback.
• The Editor receives the updated article and send it to Publication department.

Peer Review Policy

The exercise of peer review is to ensure that only good research paper is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vigorous role in keeping the high standards of the Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology Journal and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is completely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are inadequately original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review

The Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology employs single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors during the process.

How the reviewer is selected?

Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is regularly being updated.

Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original?
• Is methodologically sound?
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines?
• Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions?
• Correctly refers previous relevant work?

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy or edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Personal opinions can be expressed in the reviewer confidential comments to Editor section.

How Long Does the Peer Review Process Take?

Generally, the manuscript will be reviewed within 4-8 weeks. Should the reviewers’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed another expert opinion is sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the editor within 3-4 weeks. The Editor may request more than one revision of article.

Final Report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include precise comments by the reviewers. Editor's Decision is final.

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.

Becoming a Reviewer For The Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology Journal

Potential experts in the field, likely to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, may contact the editorial office by e-mail at anft.journal@gmail.com, and provide their contact details and profile. Reviewers are finalized based on their profile and communicated for review process accordingly.