|Editorial and Review Policy|| > For Authors and Reviewers > Editorial and Review Policy
The Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences (AJAS) is published by the Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (AAAP). Its editorial policies are established by the editorial board of AJAS.
The suitability of papers for publication in AJAS is judged by the members of the editorial board. Editor-in-Chief has full responsibility for papers submitted, which are edited in the order received. At initial stage he may request associate editors to evaluate submitted papers for suitability of further review process. Each paper will be evaluated by at least two members of the editorial board or other scientifically qualified reviewers. Editor-in-Chief handles all correspondence with the author and he makes the final decision as to whether the paper is recommended for acceptance, rejection or needs to be returned to the author for revision. A reviewer may not be from the same institution as author. Reviewers should examine the paper and return it with their report to the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible, usually within 3 weeks. The identity and the report of the reviewers are made known to the Editor-in-Chief, but only the anonymous report is routinely sent to the author. The anonymity of the reviewers is preserved unless the reviewers desire otherwise.
The reviewer recommends acceptance, acceptance after revision, resubmission after revision or rejection. If both reviewers recommend acceptance or rejection, the decision stands. When their opinions differ, then the Editor-in-Chief may ask a third reviewer or associate editors to decide acceptance or rejection of that paper. Editor-in-Chief may have to decide whether to accept or reject a manuscript for which reports are overdue, the review process not having been completed within 2 months.
Papers needing revision will be returned to the authors, and the author must return the revised manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief within 4 weeks; otherwise the author will be notified that the paper has been withdrawn. Editor-in-Chief may send the revised manuscript to associate editors to check if the manuscript is revised as suggested by editorial members.
If a paper is not suitable for publication, the author will be notified with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal if he or she believes an erroneous or unfair judgement has been made. A letter to the Editor-in-Chief presenting reasons why the decision should be reconsidered will be given due consideration. Most papers that eventually are published are first returned for revision. Revisions are requested because, in the opinion of the reviewers, the suggested changes will improve the paper. Common reasons for requesting revision are failure to follow style and form, lack of clarity or brevity, questions of fact or theory, poor organization of tabular material and poor English.
Once a paper has been accepted, every effort will be made to publish it promptly. The time interval from the date the manuscript is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief to the date of acceptance for publication varies, depending on the time required for review and revision. E-mail announcing the issue of publication is sent to the author after the manuscript has been accepted by the Editor-in-Chief.