Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers for the South African Journal of Animal Science

ISSN 2221-4062 (online)

Thank you for your time and service in support of the South African Journal of Animal Science. Peer-reviewed journals could not exist without the valued input of reviewers, and your support is therefore greatly appreciated by the journal. Certificates recognising the services of our reviewers can be provided on request ([email protected]).

In your review, please consider the following aspects of the manuscript as far as they are applicable: 

1. Does the manuscript represent an original contribution to current scientific knowledge of the principles or the application of principles governing the functioning of animals and their relationship to the physical or social environment?
2. Does the introduction indicate the status of current knowledge and motivate why the study was done? Is there a clear hypothesis?
3. Are the objectives of the study clearly defined?
4. Is the experimental design appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study?
5. Are the experimental techniques appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study and are full details thereof provided?
6. Is the study acceptable from an ethical point of view, and is this clearly stated in the text?
7. Are the results presented in an unbiased fashion, and are they presented in a clear, concise and complete manner?
8. Are all the tables/figures necessary? Do figures duplicate data in tables?
9. Is the discussion relevant and adequate for the full interpretation of the results, without becoming speculative?
10. Does the discussion place the results in the context of the existing literature, without losing focus on these results?
11. Do the results and discussion justify the conclusions drawn from the work?

NB: Please concentrate on the scientific merit of the paper, and do not spend time correcting editorial shortcomings.

When submitting your review via the online journal management system, you will be requested to complete a form indicating your comments on each section of the manuscript. Insert additional general comments here, distinguishing between those that you consider to be conditional for publication and those that are to be considered as advice only.

You will also be asked to provide a recommendation to the sub-editor, with the following options to choose from: 

In addition to the above, we request that you please insert comments and advice directly on the manuscript file itself using either the “tools > track changes > highlight changes” option in MS Word, or alternatively, using a different font colour, and upload this file when submitting your review via the online journal management system.

Please note:

1. The identity of reviewers will remain confidential and will not be divulged to the authors.
2. If you use the “track changes” option when reviewing the manuscript, your identity (or that of the computer used) will be revealed in any comments made, or if the cursor is placed over the tracked changes for a few seconds. It is therefore important for you to change your MS Word username prior to making any comments or tracked changes on the reviewed document. This can be done via the following steps: File > More > Options > General > Personalize your copy of Microsoft Office.
3. The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it described before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
4. A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, constructive and impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review.  Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication. Although a reviewer may not fully agree with an authors’ interpretation of the data, the authors’ opinions should be allowed to stand unless they are shown to be in error.
5. A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author without first consulting the editor.
6. In comments intended for the authors’ eyes (i.e., comments inserted on the manuscript), criticism should be presented dispassionately and abrasive remarks avoided.
7. Suggested revisions should be phrased as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable in the text of your email reply to the sub-editor.
8. Reviewers are not expected to correct deficiencies of style or mistakes in grammar, but any help you can offer to the editor in this regard will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and care – without the selfless inputs of reviewers, the journal would not have the standing that is currently ascribed to it by the international scientific community. By way of return, please note that manuscript submissions from reviewers will be given priority. Please visit the new online version of the journal at https://www.sasas.co.za/resources/sa-journal-animal-science/.