Our peer review policy has three main features:
Regarding plagiarism, replication, and duplication, we adhere to the COPE guidelines. In addition, as a Crossref member, Animal Review (AR) uses similarity checking tools recommended by Crossref. To ensure the originality of content, AR uses iThenticate software, a powerful, user-friendly tool, to detect plagiarism.
Additionally, in order to ensure publication ethics are applied throughout the peer review process, AR has clear and distinct policies for conflict of interest, human rights, and informed consent (COPE, 2011, 2015). To comply with the guidelines set out by COPE, we require authors to clearly state any conflict of interest regarding financial and non-financial matters. In cases where human subjects are involved, or if any research shows human health intervention, AR requires authors to submit their research for approval to their institutional ethics committee or review board. AR also ensures that authors have obtained informed consent from the participants, who are permitted to opt out of the research process at any stage. See publication ethical guidelines of AR for more details: http://www.conscientiabeam.com/journal/92/publication_ethics.html.
Our research articles, therefore, convey scientific validity and compatibility with state-of-the-art knowledge. The articles are not only comprehensible but also offer a valuable contribution to the knowledge domain.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015, November). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-publication-ethics-flowcharts-full-set.pdf Eysenbach G and Till JE (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. The BMJ, 323: 1103-1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103