Peer Review Process
The editorial office of Chinese Livestock and Poultry Breeding follows a strict peer review process, including similarity checking and preliminary screening, initial review by the handling editor, external expert review, review by the editorial office director, and final review by the Editor-in-Chief, to ensure the innovation and academic quality of published papers. The journal’s editorial system uses the manuscript processing system provided by Magtech (http://gdnykx.gdaas.cn), which supports mobile office work for reviewers and editors.
Similarity check and preliminary screening: After receipt, the manuscript enters the system. Editors first use CNKI’s Academic Misconduct Literature Check System for Scientific and Technical Journals (AMLC) (https://check.cnki.net/amlc2/) and Wanfang checking tools to detect academic misconduct. The journal requires that the similarity rate of the main text be no higher than 10%. The editorial office director then examines whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s aims, falls within its coverage, has basically complete components, and meets basic writing standards. Manuscripts that pass screening enter the initial review stage; for rejected manuscripts, authors should log in to the system to view the review comments.
Initial review by the handling editor: The handling editor conducts a formal review and basic content review, checking whether the copyright transfer agreement is properly completed and whether the authors have signed it personally, with special attention to whether supervisors have signed student papers. Any questions are promptly verified with the authors. The handling editor also reviews the full manuscript item by item according to the journal’s review form, focusing on the research rationale, reasonableness of experimental design, replication of treatments, statistical analysis, and standardization of writing. Special attention is paid to China maps, Taiwan-related terminology, and other ideology-related content. Manuscripts with insufficient innovation, unsystematic or superficial research, or poor academic quality are screened out, while manuscripts that pass the initial review are sent to suitable peer experts for external review. The initial review period is 2 to 3 days.
External expert review: The journal strictly implements peer review. External review uses double-blind peer review. Two external experts in the same field evaluate the manuscript’s innovation, scientific merit, and publication value. If both reviewers consider the manuscript to be of good quality, it proceeds to revision, re-review, or final review; if both consider it poor and not suitable for publication, it is rejected; if the two reviewers disagree, a third expert is invited or the re-review/final review decides whether to accept, request revision, or reject the manuscript. The external review period is kept within 15 days.
Review by the editorial office director: Based on the handling editor’s initial review comments, external reviewers’ comments, and the author’s revised versions and response explanations, the editorial office director comprehensively evaluates manuscript quality, academic level, and the adequacy of revisions, then makes a recommendation on acceptance and sends the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief for final review. This review period is 3 days.
Final review by the Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief considers all previous review comments together with the manuscript content and gives the final decision on acceptance. The final review period is 5 days.
The journal’s review process takes no more than one month and may be as fast as 10 days, excluding the time authors spend revising. If accepted, the period from submission to publication is approximately six months and may be as fast as two months.