Indonesian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (JITPI)
The aim and scope of the journal:
Indonesian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (JITPI) is a scientific journal as a forum for communication in the study of theory and application in Animal Husbandry Contains scientific texts in the field of animal science and technology covering the genetics of livestock, livestock nutrition, livestock physiology, livestock production, socio-economic livestock, livestock development policy, livestock health, livestock processing technology, and animal husbandry biotechnology. Articles are considered to be loaded are in the form of research or scientific simulations that have never been published or are waiting for publishing in other publications. JITPI Journal publishes two times a year in June and December. Our publication is an open access journal so that it is free of charge unless the author(s) need the printed version.
Contains scientific texts in the field of animal science and technology covering the genetics of livestock, livestock nutrition, livestock physiology, livestock production, socio-economic livestock, livestock development policy, livestock health, livestock processing technology, and animal husbandry biotechnology.
The research article submitted to Indonesian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (JITPI) will be peer-reviewed by reviewers. The accepted research articles will be available online following the journal peer-reviewing process. Language used in this journal is English or Indonesia.
Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.
From a publishers perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands.
Running articles through the process of peer review adds value to them. For this reason publishers need to make sure that peer review is robust.
"Pointing out the specifics about flaws in the papers structure is paramount. Are methods valid, is data clearly presented, and are conclusions supported by data? (Editor feedback)
If an editor can read your comments and understand clearly the basis for your recommendation, then you have written a helpful review. (Editor feedback)
Peer Review at Its Best
What peer review does best is improve the quality of published papers by motivating authors to submit good quality work and helping to improve that work through the peer review process.
Ethic statements of Indonesian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (JITPI) are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.