Focus and Scope:
Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research (established 2011) is an international journal indexed on Scopus, that publishes researches in all matters relevant to the veterinary profession. The mission of the Journal is to provide students, veterinarians and researchers with the current advanced researches in different veterinary disciplines. The key objective of the Journal is to promote the art and science of veterinary medicine and the betterment of animal health and production.
ISSN (Print): 2090-6269
ISSN (Online): 2090-6277
Impact Factor-2017 (Google Scholar): 0.40
Open Access Policy:
Articles will be peer-reviewed, published online as a full text, and under the Open Access publishing model.
Type of articles:
Manuscripts may describe original work in a Full Paper (Original Article) or a Short Communication, Case Reports or may form a Review of the existing state of knowledge on a particular aspect of veterinary science. Reviews should, in general, be written in support of original investigations.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors also certify that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere, including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright-holder (Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research)
Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles under the following conditions: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
Research involving Animal subjects or Animal material must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.
Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licenses must be included in the manuscript.
Such studies must meet Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research will reject any paper where there is reason to believe that animals have been subjected to unnecessary or avoidable pain or distress.
Submission of a manuscript to Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.
Our online submission system guides you stepwise through the process of entering your article details and uploading your files. Editable files (e.g., Word) are required to typeset your article for final publication. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, is sent by e-mail.
Options will be given for Authors to select a set of classifications for their papers, as well as a category designation (Original Article, Review, Short Communication care report), from a given list.
Authors must submit articles in WORD format and not as PDF files. Queries concerning the submission process or journal procedures should be sent by e-mail to: email@example.com.
The Corresponding Author, who is normally the Author submitting the paper, will be asked to confirm that the article is original and is not being considered for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere. Submission also implies that all of the Authors have approved the paper for release and are in agreement with its content.
Identification of Authorship
The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This is all those who:
- Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
- Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
- Final approval of the version to be published; and
- Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
On its own, acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group does not constitute authorship, although all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Individuals designated as authors should qualify for authorship and all those who qualify must be listed. Each author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate parts of the content.
Changes to authorship
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor. To request such a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in author list and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. While the Editor considers the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online issue, any requests approved by the Editor will result in a corrigendum.
Changes in Authorship
In accordance with COPE requirements we require that any proposed changes in authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles are subject to signed approval from each author. Changes in authorship to published papers are only done through a separate correction article: the original published article will not be changed.
Under no circumstances will changes in authorship following submission or publication extending to all authors identified in the initially submitted manuscript be permitted.
Disagreement on Authorship
If there is a disagreement among authors concerning authorship and a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the author(s) must contact their institution(s) for a resolution. It is not the responsibility of the editor in chief or the publisher to resolve authorship disputes.
Citing Other Literature
Articles should cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Self-citation that is excessive, inappropriate or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged.
Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:
- All statements relying on external sources of information (not the authors own new ideas or findings or general knowledge) should use a citation.
- Citation of derivations of an original work should be avoided. In practice this means that authors should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites an original work.
- Authors should ensure that their citations support the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the authors' statement.
- Sources that the authors have not read should not be cited.
- Authors may not preferentially cite their own or their friends', peers' or institution's publications.
- Where possible authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review.
- Authors should never cite advertisements or advertorial material.
Authors should include full information on the statistical methods and measures used in their research, including justification of the appropriateness of the statistical test used (see the SAMPL guidelines for more information). Reviewers will be asked to check the statistical methods, and the manuscript may be sent for specialist statistical review if considered necessary.
Conflict of interests
Journal of Advanced Veterinary Research requires authors to declare all conflict of interests in relation to their work. Authors are asked to confirm the absence of conflict of interest during the electronic submission of manuscript. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘Acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.
Role of the funding source
Authors are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, then this should be stated.
The peer review process is at the heart of the success of scientific publishing, as part of our commitment to the protection and enhancement of the peer review process.
The editorial board is very strict regarding plagiarism. The journal believes that taking the ideas and work of others without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else's manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism-use your own words instead. The editorial board retains the absolute authority to reject the review process of a submitted manuscript if it subject to minor or major plagiarism and even may cancel the publication upon the complaint of victim(s) of plagiarism.
The process of peer review assures the quality of the content in the articles, with the goal being new knowledge and skills that are of practical benefit to the readers of the Journal.
Two reviewers are usually chosen for each article. Reviews are evaluated by the Managing Editor, who makes the preliminary decision to accept, decline, or ask the author to revise the article.
The peer reviewer determines whether the article is substantive and accurate, with appropriate scope and in sufficient detail. The topic should not be too broad or general. Constructive comments and suggestions are meant to challenge the author to improve the article where necessary and to guide the author in presenting the material clearly and concisely. The reviewer must remain fair and unbiased in the critical appraisal of the material.
Double-blinded Review Process and Timeframe
Reviews are double-blinded; that is, reviewers and authors are not informed of each other’s identities during the review process. If the reviewer, Managing Editor, and/or Editor-in-Chief feel more revisions are deemed necessary a submission may undergo several reviews.
- Reviewers must take care not to identify themselves, or their institutions within the body of their comments.
- Reviews are read by the assigned Managing Editor, who makes the preliminary decision to accept or decline, or to ask the author to revise the article. The Managing Editor may also request that the reviewer comment on an extensively revised article that he or she had reviewed previously in an earlier version.
- Reviews are to be returned in a timely manner, within 4 weeks of invitation, as determined by the Editorial Board of Directors. Because the Managing Editor’s decision must wait until all reviews are complete, a delay by a single reviewer slows the editorial process. Agree to review an article only if you have the proper expertise and are confident that you meet the deadline.
Preparing Your Review
Please consider the following when accepting an invitation and/or preparing your review.
- If you have a conflict of interest (eg, you believe that you know who the authors are or you work with one of them, you have worked on a paper with one of the authors, or you have a financial, professional, personal, intellectual, political, or religious interest/disagreement with the text), respond to your review invitation by letting the editor know of your conflict of interest. Full disclosure allows for an informed decision.
- If you notice that the article has substantial similarity with a concurrent submission to another journal or to a published article, or if you have ethical concerns about the work (eg, you suspect that results cited may be untrue or fraudulent, or you suspect unethical treatment of humans or animals in the studies described), it is your responsibility to alert the Managing Editor of your concerns. You should not conduct any personal investigations into suspected misconduct or contact the authors (should you become aware of their identities) unless the editorial office asks for further information.
- Your ethical responsibility as a reviewer is to not make use of material under your review prior to publication, and you must not publicly discuss the article or use knowledge of it to further your own interests.