Peer Review Policy

OneHealth Plus Journal is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and academically independent peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial process and is intended to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of manuscripts published in the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated according to their academic merit and suitability for the journal's scope, regardless of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, professional position, gender, or other personal characteristics.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to OneHealth Plus Journal undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review. During this stage, the Editorial Office evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and whether it meets the journal's basic requirements concerning originality, academic quality, ethical compliance, manuscript preparation, and completeness.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical or formatting corrections before peer review. A manuscript may also be rejected at the initial stage if it is outside the scope of the journal, lacks sufficient scientific contribution, contains substantial methodological deficiencies, demonstrates inappropriate similarity or plagiarism, fails to satisfy applicable ethical requirements, or does not meet the journal's basic publication standards.

Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to independent expert reviewers with relevant knowledge and expertise in the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are requested to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, clarity, methodology, analysis, interpretation, references, ethical aspects, and overall contribution of the manuscript.

OneHealth Plus Journal follows a blind peer-review process. The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, and authors should ensure that identifying information is appropriately removed from the blinded manuscript where required by the submission system. The journal may select reviewers based on their subject expertise, research experience, publication record, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, constructively, and confidentially. Reviewers should assess manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific and academic merits and should provide clear, professional, and evidence-based comments that can assist authors in improving their work.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information contained in manuscripts received for review. Unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process must not be used for personal, professional, or research purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. They should decline to review a manuscript if their relationship with the authors, institutions, subject matter, or other circumstances could compromise the objectivity or independence of their assessment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers may consider the originality and significance of the research, relevance to the scope of OneHealth Plus Journal, clarity of the research objectives, appropriateness of the methodology, adequacy of data collection and analysis, validity of the results, quality of discussion and interpretation, appropriateness of the conclusions, quality and relevance of references, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the relevant field.

For interdisciplinary and One Health research, reviewers may additionally consider the relevance and integration of the human, animal, environmental, or other disciplinary dimensions addressed by the study.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the Editorial Office considers the reviewers' recommendations together with its own editorial assessment. Possible decisions may include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. In some circumstances, the Editorial Office may request additional review or clarification before reaching a final decision.

A recommendation from an individual reviewer does not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The Editor may consider the consistency and scientific justification of reviewer comments, the overall quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial standards when making the final decision.

Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and Editorial Office. Authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer's recommendation, they may provide a clear and academically justified response. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when the Editorial Office considers additional review necessary.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and suitability for evaluating the particular manuscript. The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who have conflicts of interest with the authors or the research. The Editorial Office may consider academic expertise, institutional affiliation, previous reviewing experience, publication history, and other relevant factors when selecting reviewers.

Confidentiality

The peer-review process is confidential. Reviewers must not disclose the identity of the authors, the content of the manuscript, their review reports, or discussions relating to the manuscript to unauthorized individuals.

Similarly, authors should not attempt to identify reviewers or contact reviewers directly concerning manuscripts under review. Any communication concerning the editorial status or review of a manuscript should be directed to the Editorial Office.

Conflicts of Interest

The journal expects editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest that could influence the evaluation or editorial decision. Individuals with a significant conflict may be excluded from the review or decision-making process.

Authors are also required to disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence the research or its interpretation.

Research Ethics

Peer review does not replace the authors' responsibility to ensure that research has been conducted in accordance with applicable ethical and legal standards. Manuscripts involving human participants, animals, patient information, or other ethically sensitive research must comply with relevant institutional and international requirements.

Where applicable, information concerning ethics committee approval, informed consent, animal welfare approval, data protection, and other relevant ethical requirements should be included in the manuscript.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

The journal may use plagiarism and similarity-detection tools as part of its editorial process. Reviewers and editors are encouraged to report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, or other forms of research misconduct to the Editorial Office.

Where concerns are identified, the journal may conduct an appropriate investigation and take editorial action in accordance with applicable publication-ethics principles.

Timeliness of Peer Review

The journal aims to process manuscripts and complete peer review within a reasonable period. Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the timeframe communicated by the Editorial Office. If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the requested period, the journal may invite an alternative reviewer in order to avoid unnecessary delays.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and scientific contribution of manuscripts. Editorial decisions should not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, nationality, political considerations, or other inappropriate external factors.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that a significant error has occurred in the editorial or peer-review process may submit an appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should provide specific and academically justified reasons for reconsideration rather than simply expressing disagreement with the decision.

The Editorial Office may review the appeal, seek clarification from reviewers or editors, or request an additional independent assessment where appropriate. The journal also welcomes complaints concerning possible breaches of editorial or publication ethics and will investigate such concerns in a fair and appropriate manner.

Final Editorial Authority

The final decision concerning the publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Office and designated editors of OneHealth Plus Journal. Peer-review recommendations are an important component of the decision-making process, but the Editor may consider the overall scientific quality, reviewer reports, ethical considerations, journal scope, and publication standards when reaching a final decision.

OneHealth Plus Journal is committed to ensuring that peer review contributes to a reliable, credible, and high-quality scholarly record while providing authors with a fair and constructive opportunity to improve their research.