The Diyala Journal for Veterinary Sciences (DJVS) is a double-blind, open-access, peer-reviewed journal that relies on the expertise, diligence, objectivity, and integrity of its reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, credibility, reliability, and ethical standards of its publications.
As part of the journal’s double-blind peer-review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other, as far as reasonably possible, to support fair and unbiased evaluation.
By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript for DJVS, reviewers agree to comply with the following responsibilities:
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, disclose, or use any part of the manuscript or related materials without prior permission from the editorial office.
Information obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal, professional, research, financial, or competitive advantage.
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, figures, tables, data, or supplementary materials to artificial intelligence tools, online platforms, or third-party services that may compromise confidentiality, data protection, or intellectual property rights.
Reviews must be conducted objectively, fairly, and without personal, professional, institutional, academic, or ideological bias.
Reviewer comments should be constructive, respectful, clear, and supported by sound scientific reasoning or evidence.
Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
Reviewers should decline the review invitation if they cannot provide an objective and independent assessment.
Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that may affect, or appear to affect, their ability to review the manuscript objectively.
Conflicts of interest may include financial relationships, academic competition, recent collaboration, personal relationships, institutional connections, or any other circumstances involving the authors, their institutions, sponsors, or funding bodies.
If a conflict of interest exists or becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must promptly inform the editorial office and decline or withdraw from the review when appropriate.
Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the agreed time frame after accepting the review invitation.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they must promptly notify the editorial office so that an extension or alternative arrangement can be considered.
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate the manuscript, or any part of it, should inform the editorial office.
Reviewers should alert the editorial office confidentially if they suspect any ethical or publication misconduct, including but not limited to:
Potential plagiarism or text recycling
Duplicate or redundant publication
Data fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or selective reporting
Inappropriate image manipulation
Ethical concerns related to animal studies, human participants, biological samples, or client-owned animals
Lack of required ethical approval or informed consent
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Inappropriate authorship or contributorship concerns
Suspected ethical issues should be reported to the editorial office and should not be investigated independently by the reviewer.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to its scientific merit and relevance to the field of veterinary sciences.
The review should consider:
The originality and significance of the study
The clarity of the research objectives
The appropriateness of the methodology and experimental design
The adequacy of ethical approval and animal welfare considerations, where applicable
The validity and accuracy of data analysis and interpretation
The clarity and completeness of the results
Whether the conclusions are supported by the findings
The relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of the references
The contribution of the manuscript to veterinary medicine, animal health, public health, zoonotic diseases, or related disciplines
Reviewers should provide detailed, clear, constructive, and actionable comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.
Comments should be specific and scientifically justified. Vague, unsupported, hostile, or personal remarks should be avoided.
Where appropriate, reviewers may suggest relevant literature to improve the manuscript. However, reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, to articles from DJVS, or to any other source unless the suggested references are directly relevant and scientifically justified.
Reviewer reports should distinguish between major scientific concerns, minor corrections, language issues, and formatting matters.
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript is consistent with the aims and scope of DJVS, including basic, clinical, public health, and interdisciplinary areas of veterinary science, animal health, and zoonotic diseases.
If the manuscript appears to be outside the journal’s scope, reviewers should clearly explain this in their report.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript.
If the reviewer becomes aware of the authors’ identity, or suspects the identity of the authors, this should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.
Such information must not be included in the reviewer report and must not influence the scientific evaluation of the manuscript.
Reviewers are responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review reports.
Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to analyze, summarize, evaluate, or generate comments on unpublished manuscripts if such use may compromise confidentiality, data security, intellectual property rights, or the integrity of the peer-review process.
Any permitted use of digital or language-support tools must not replace the reviewer’s own expert judgment.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor based on the reviewers’ reports, editorial assessment, journal policies, and ethical standards.
By accepting an invitation to review for DJVS, reviewers confirm their commitment to confidentiality, objectivity, scientific rigor, timely evaluation, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing.
Note: The author must complete the Statement of Copyright Transfer, Financial Disclosure, Use of AI, and Authorship Responsibility form (attached below) and upload it along with the submitted manuscript.
Statement of Copyright Transfer, Financial Disclosure, Use of AI, and Authorship Responsibility
DJVS will be publishing 4 issues per year (quarterly).
First decision | 2-5 Days
Review Process up to | 30 Days
Submission to acceptance and publishing | 30-90 Days
Email: djvs@uodiyala.edu.iq
Phone: 009647901254572
