pISSN: 2671-4639
eISSN: 2671-4663

Article Search

## For Reviewers

contributors For Reviewers

This guideline for reviewers describes the basic considerations when reviewing a manuscript that has been submitted to Journal of Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology (JARB). All of the contents in JARB are subject to peer review.

The JARB adopts double-blind review, which implies that the reviewers do not recognize the identity of the authors and vice versa.

1. Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC checks whether a submitted manuscript fulfills the submission guidelines and is suitable for scope of JARB, selects the relevant section editor and is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a peer-reviewed manuscript based on the general critiques from peer reviewers and section editor.
2. Section editor: The section editor appoints at least 3 peer reviewers from the specialist database owned by the Editorial Board member of JARB or upon the recommendation from the editors, and prepares the general critiques based on peer reviewers decisions with comments.
3. Peer reviewer: The peer reviewers recommend an appropriate course of action from the following list of options: 1. Acceptance, 2. Acceptance after revisions, 3. Reconsideration after revisions, 4. Rejection. Recommendation for decisions must reflect the "Review Guideline for Peer Reviewer" and should be objective. After logging in the e-submission system of JARB, the peer reviewer downloads PDF files and supplementary files. Thereafter, the peer reviewer initiates the review within review period (14 days). It is necessary for peer reviewer to concentrate scientific soundness, the logical interpretation of the results, statistical analysis, comprehensiveness of writing, interestingness to the research field and additional citation for previous articles during reviewing the assigned manuscript. Then the peer reviewer prepares both ‘Comment to Authors’ and ‘Comment to Editor’, containing peer reviewers comments, opinions, recommendations and decisions. In the ‘Comment to Authors’, the peer reviewer summarizes the whole contents of assigned manuscript in 1-2 sentence(s). Then the peer reviewer`s opinions and decisions are briefly appeared within 1-2 sentence(s). Thereafter, if any part(s) in the manuscript is required to be corrected and revised, the comment(s) for each part is noted by page mark with giving detailed descriptions to assist publication. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance should not be stated here. When rejecting assigned manuscript, the peer reviewer should treat authors with courtesy. In case of ‘Comment to Editor’, the peer reviewer can describe special opinion(s) to editor.

All information obtained during the review process is confidential to the third party. In particular, peer reviewers must not use any outcomes (e.g. material and data) derived from the manuscript in review. If there are any conflicts of interest (e.g. financial support, earnest request, antipathy and competitor group), the peer reviewer should decline to review the assigned manuscript. Peer reviewers should proceed the review task with sincerity and submit their decision with recommendation in a timely fashion.

Based on the comments, opinions, recommendations and decisions from peer reviewers, the section editor generates the general critiques for the manuscript. The critiques is forwarded to EIC for the final decision.

1. Title: This should be concise and precise, but informative for the contents.
2. Abstract: This should be described in less than 350 words in a paragraph, and explain purpose, methods, important results and conclusion of the study.
3. Introduction: This should acquaint the reader with the subject and justify the objective of the research.
4. Materials and methods: This section must contain enough information to allow another scientist to duplicate the study.
5. Results: This section must contain sufficient information to fully describe the outcome of the research and be presented in logical sequence.
6. Discussion: This contains an explanation of the meaning of the results by means of comparison with other relevant studies. The principles, relationships and general truths shown by the results should be presented without retelling the results. Implication of the study is necessary to be well-presented.
7. Conclusion: The main findings of article are summarized, in consistent with abstract part.
8. Reference: Style and format of the references meet the standards of the JARB.
9. Figures: Figure and legend of figure should provide sufficient information for the results. Images are high quality and the legends are clearly stated. All kinds of images obtained from the web or other articles are prohibited.
10. Table: This should provide sufficient information for the results and be displayed concisely and efficiently.
11. Additional considerations: The topic and objective of the manuscript is suitable for the scope of JARB. The research objective and results are coherent. The main body of text (introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion and reference) are presented in the right order. The statistical analysis is appropriate. There is no ethical issue including animal well-fare. There is no unnecessary repetition.
Journal information September, 2021 Vol.36 No.3
pISSN 2671-4639
eISSN 2671-4663
더보기

#### Pregnancy diagnosis in goat by using vaginal cytology and trans-abdominal ultrasonography

Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Faruk Islam, S M Latifur Rahman and Begum Fatema Zohara

Journal of Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology 2020;35: 338-346

#### Differences in ruminal temperature between pregnant and non-pregnant Korean cattle

Dae Hyun Kim, Jae Jung Ha, Jun Koo Yi, Byung Ki Kim, Woo-Sung Kwon, Bong-Hae Ye, Seung Ho Kim and Yoonseok Lee

Journal of Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology 2021;36: 45-50

more