The International Journal of Poultry Science (IJPS) operates a double-blind peer review system for the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Under this system, reviewers do not receive the identities of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. This process is intended to support independent, objective, and academically rigorous evaluation.

Editorial Screening

Every submission is initially examined by the Editorial Office to determine whether it is appropriate for further consideration. Manuscripts may also be evaluated by an editor with relevant subject expertise before external review begins.

The initial assessment may consider:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of IJPS;
• Scientific quality and suitability for peer review;
• Compliance with the journal's submission requirements;
• Originality and potential contribution to poultry science;
• Research ethics and animal welfare requirements, where applicable; and
• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns.

Submissions that do not satisfy the journal's basic requirements may be returned for correction or declined before external peer review.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers may be selected from specialists in poultry nutrition, genetics, breeding, physiology, health, welfare, production, management, microbiology, veterinary science, or other disciplines relevant to the submitted work.

The editor may seek additional reviews when specialized expertise is required, when the initial reports provide substantially different assessments, or when further expert opinion would assist in reaching an appropriate editorial decision.

Double-Blind Review

IJPS uses double-blind peer review. Reasonable measures are taken to prevent the disclosure of author identities to reviewers and reviewer identities to authors during the review process.

Authors should prepare their manuscripts in accordance with the journal's requirements for double-blind review and should avoid including unnecessary identifying information in the version of the manuscript provided for review.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessments. Reviews should address the scientific quality of the manuscript, appropriateness of the methodology and experimental design, reliability of the results, interpretation of the findings, relevance to poultry science, and clarity of presentation.

Reviewers should also identify significant ethical or scientific concerns that become apparent during their evaluation, including concerns relating to animal welfare, research integrity, plagiarism, inappropriate data presentation, or duplicate publication.

Reviewers must declare relevant conflicts of interest and should decline an invitation when a conflict could prevent an impartial assessment. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial further revision.
• Minor Revision: Limited changes are required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
• Major Revision: Significant revisions or additional clarification are necessary before another decision can be made.
• Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript requires extensive changes and may be considered again following substantial revision.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in IJPS.

Reviewer recommendations assist the editors but do not constitute the final publication decision.

Revision and Further Review

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should respond carefully to the comments provided by reviewers and editors. A point-by-point response should explain how the comments have been addressed and, where a suggested change has not been made, provide an appropriate explanation.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor or returned to one or more reviewers for further evaluation. The editor may obtain additional expert review when necessary.

Editorial Decision

Editors consider the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' responses, scientific and ethical considerations, and the relevance of the work to the journal when reaching an editorial decision.

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor evaluates the reasons supporting each assessment and may seek an additional independent review when this would assist the decision-making process. A manuscript is not accepted or rejected solely on the basis of a numerical count of reviewer recommendations.

The final editorial decision rests with the responsible editorial authority of the International Journal of Poultry Science.

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

An editor who has a relevant personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest concerning a submission must not participate in its evaluation or decision. The manuscript will instead be assigned to another qualified editor.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are evaluated under the same peer review standards applied to other manuscripts. The submitting individual will not participate in the selection of reviewers or the editorial decision concerning their own work.

Confidentiality and Integrity of Peer Review

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are confidential. Information obtained through peer review must not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the evaluation of the manuscript.

IJPS does not permit manipulation of the peer review process. Fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, undisclosed conflicts, attempts to influence reviewer selection improperly, or other deceptive practices may result in rejection and additional action under the journal's publication ethics policies.