Peer Review

Zoonoses subjects all submitted research articles to the highest standards of international peer review:

  • At least two suitably qualified external experts, who are not members of the journal Editorial Board, review each research article.
  • The journals’ Co-Editors-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided.
  • The Editorial Board Members assist the Co-Editors-in-Chief in decision making on specific submissions.
  • The Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Co-Editors-in-Chief.
  • Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Academic Editors and the Managing Editor. They uphold the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors alike.
  • The journal uses a single blind peer review process.
  • Zoonoses subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journal. Our readers will always be informed about how the research is funded and our relationships with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE recommendations.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

The following points are considered during the review process:

  • Is the manuscript suitable for Zoonoses? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

  • Are the results and conclusions well-supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

  • Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

  • Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

For information on our Conflict of Interest Policy for reviewers please click here.

Special Issues (SIs) are collections of papers centered around a subject of special interest and are organized and led by subject experts who take on the role of Guest Editor of the Special Issue. All submissions follow the same peer review process as regular papers. All papers will be submitted through the journals on-line submission system and Guest Editors and invited authors must follow all journal Editorial Policies carefully.

Reviewer selection

The following criteria are applied to all reviewers:

  • They should hold no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
  • They should not come from the same institution as the authors;
  • They should not have published together with the authors in the last three years;
  • They should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID);
  • They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

Reviewers who are accepted to review a manuscript are expected to:

  • Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer review;
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by emailing the Editorial Office. The appeal must include a detailed justification, addressing each of the reviewers’ and/or Editor’s comments point-by-point. Appeals will only be considered if the decision was a “reject and decline resubmission,” and must be submitted within three months of the decision date. Appeals submitted after this period will not be reviewed. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and relevant materials (including the identities of the reviewers) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The assigned academic editor will provide an advisory recommendation, which may include accepting the manuscript, sending it for further peer review, or upholding the original rejection decision. The Editor-in-Chief will then review and validate the final decision. A rejection at this stage is final and cannot be overturned.