Publishing Policies

 

Editorial Policy

Livestock Research Today follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and endorses the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals as well as the GPP3 guidelines regarding authorship.

Submission of a manuscript to Livestock Research Today implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.

 

Authorship

Authorship credit should be based on:

1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published; and
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4.

When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript (3). These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals generally list other members of the group in the Acknowledgments. The NLM indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript; it also lists the names of collaborators if they are listed in Acknowledgments. 

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. 

All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. 

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Increasingly, authorship of multicenter trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship/contributorship. 

The group should jointly make decisions about contributors/authors before submitting the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author/guarantor should be prepared to explain the presence and order of these individuals. It is not the role of editors to make authorship/contributorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorship.

Changes to authorship 
Livestock Research Today  does not permit the changing/adding/deleting of authors after submission of the paper.

Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only general support. Authors should declare whether they had assistance with study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation. If such assistance was available, the authors should disclose the identity of the individuals who provided this assistance and the entity that supported it in the published article. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.

Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the article but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under such headings as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described—for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, these persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.

Please note: the Authorship and “Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments” sections are reprinted from the ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Livestock Research Today  prepared this reprint. The ICMJE has not endorsed nor approved the contents of this reprint. The official version of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals is located at http://www.icmje.org/. Users should cite this official version when citing the document. 

Authors Declaration and Warranties
By submitting any research article for the purposes of publication by Livestock Research Today  the authors must certify and warrant that:

The submitting author has been authorised by any co-authors to submit the research article; and

1. They are the sole author(s) of the article and are legally able and entitled to submit the article and authorise Livestock Research Today  to publish the research article. If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, I/we will notify DMP at the time of submission.
2. The research article is original, has not already been published in any other journal (medical, or otherwise) or is not currently under consideration for publication by another journal, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other rights prescribed by law;
3. The article contains nothing that is unlawful, defamatory, or which would, if published, constitute a breach of contract or of confidentiality;
4. Due care, diligence and all other requisite investigations were carried out in the preparation of the research article(s) to ensure its accuracy. To the best of their knowledge all statements contained in it purporting to be factual are true and correct.

Common Issues
Number of authors
Consideration should be given to the number of qualified authors needed to take responsibility for the publication. To some extent, this will depend on the complexity of the research and of the publication, but it would be unusual in biomedical research (with few exceptions) to require >10 authors to meet this need. A high number of authors calls into question whether they could all have provided "substantial intellectual contribution." Fewer authors are often preferable, and others can be acknowledged (e.g., as nonauthor contributors or collaborators).

Author sequence
Authors should decide how this will be determined at the initiation of the work, including the designation of the lead and corresponding authors, who may or may not be the same person. Final order, however, should be based on authors' actual roles and contributions in the development of the publication (and therefore cannot be agreed upon until this in complete). Those who made the greatest contribution are generally listed first, but alphabetical order may also be used. It may be useful to describe in the contributorship section of the publication whether alphabetical order or some other convention was used to determine author order.

Addition or removal or author
In certain circumstances during the development of a publication, it may be necessary to add or remove an author (e.g., if an author fails to provide a substantial contribution or approve the final version of the work). In such cases, all authors should agree to the change. Only in rare cases, such as the work substantially changing in response to reviewer comments, should addition or removal of an author be considered after submission.

Death or incapacity of an author

Should an author die after completing a major part of the work, posthumous authorship can be considered if agreed to by all other authors. We suggest, as a first step, seeking advice on correct attribution and process from journal instructions or the editorial office.

If the journal agrees to posthumous authorship but requires submission forms to be signed, then in the case of a sponsor-employed author or a contractor, a supervisor may be the most appropriate proxy. Otherwise, a family member or person with power of attorney should be approached. In all cases, efforts should be made to contact the family of the deceased author to inform them of the intention and request their consent to the listing or acknowledgment.

Change of affiliation
If an author changes affiliation before the work is published, his or her affiliation should reflect where the major part of the work was done. The current affiliation and contact details should be listed in the acknowledgment section. Change of affiliation alone is not a valid reason to remove an author from a publication if he or she meets authorship criteria.

Company- or sponsor-employed authors
Sponsor-employed scientists and clinicians are often qualified to participate as authors of company-sponsored research publications and should have that opportunity. Such authors should not be denied authorship because of concerns about perception of bias. Whatever criteria are used to determine authorship should be applied equally to company employees, contractors, and others.

Professional writers as authors
Professional medical writers who meet applicable authorship criteria should be listed as authors. If writers do not meet authorship criteria, their contribution should be disclosed (e.g., as a nonauthor contributor in the acknowledgment section). Writers who were not involved with study design, data collection, or data analysis and interpretation (e.g., those developing a primary publication from a clinical study report) generally do not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. However, professional writers working on other types of publication (e.g., literature reviews) may qualify as authors.

Publication Ethics

To ensure scientific publications are of the highest quality, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have established a series of international ethical standards and guidelines. These guidelines provide advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. COPE also acts as a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics.

Livestock Research Today 's Editors comply the COPE’s Responsible research publication: international standards for authors  to maintain a balanced representation of research topics and contributors.

Livestock Research Today 's Editors comply the COPE’s Core Practices and Best Practice Guidelines to ensure the highest standards in publication ethics are upheld. All manuscripts submitted to Livestock Research Today  undergo thorough pre-publication screening for issues relating to patient consent, patient identity protection and animal ethical approval. Authors must be aware of several important publication ethical issues when submitting an article to Livestock Research Today  for publication. These issues are outlined below:

Patient identity/Informed consent
Livestock Research Today requires authors to confirm that all patients or participants (or that person’s parent or legal guardian, if the study participant is under 18 years of age) of any research, clinical trials or case studies have provided written informed consent for their details to be used in the manuscript. Similarly, any manuscript containing data, images or videos relating to an individual or group of individuals must have written patient consent for the publication of these details. Authors must also ensure all identifying patient data is anonymized and any nonessential identifying information should be omitted from the article. This includes but is not limited to the patient’s name, address, place of employment, date of birth, telephone number, email address, medical records and patient ID, account numbers, license number, IP address and full or comparable photographic image or video. Livestock Research Today  instructs all authors to read and follow the ICMJE guidelines for the Protection of Research Participants.

Where informed consent has been obtained, it must be indicated in the published article and authors must be able to provide details of this if requested by the editor. The forms must contain all the elements generally expected to be included in a patient consent form. The WHO provides useful informed consent form templates which can be adapted by investigators to suit the needs of their specific studies. It is also the responsibility of the authors to ensure they have adequately archived patient consent forms and inform the journal of this. If any doubt exists about patient identification the Publisher at Livestock Research Today  will be the final arbiter.

Ethical approval of human research
All planning conduct and reporting of human research must be in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This includes any study involving human subjects, medical records and human tissues. Authors should also seek the approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional or national review board (e.g. Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee). Any considerations or approvals made by this committee must not reduce or eliminate the protections for research subjects set out by the Declaration of Helsinki. If doubt remains whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the author must demonstrate the rationale for the independent local, regional or national review boards decision. A statement declaring review board approval must be included in the manuscript.

Ethical approval for use of human cell lines and tissues
Human cell lines and tissues are considered forms of human biospecimens. For this reason, we please ask authors to include a statement in their manuscripts detailing the relevant ethical approval and patient consent for the use of human cell lines or tissues in their studies. This is an essential requirement especially where the human material used is potentially identifiable, such as material contained in biobanks or similar repositories. If the cell lines or tissues were purchased through an accredited commercial provider, please provide details of this. If ethical approval or patient consent was not sought or provided, please provide an explanation for this.

Case reports/Case series/Clinical datasets
Livestock Research Today  considers a case report to be the diagnosis, treatment and post-treatment follow-up of a single patient. In comparison, a case series is considered a group of case reports involving patients who were all given similar treatment. A clinical dataset is a list of well-defined variables collected during the course of ongoing patient care or as part of a clinical trial program. It includes electronic health records, administrative data, patient registries, and clinical trial data.

In some instances, a case report or case series containing information on less than three patients may not require IRB approval. This is because a case series of less than three subjects may not be considered generalized knowledge or research. However, this requirement is dependant on the institution, country or region implementing it and authors must ensure they have followed the correct regulatory requirements of their respective institution or country. Outside this requirement, all case reports, case series or clinical datasets must have IRB approval and authors must be aware that IRB approval cannot be given retroactively. A statement declaring IRB approval must be included in the manuscript. Details of Journals’ Best Practices for Ensuring Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports can be found on COPEs website.

Ethical approval of animal research
All manuscripts involving animal research must show the work followed international, national and institutional guidelines for the ethical and legal treatment of animals. Authors must show the study was approved by an ethics review committee from the same institution at which the study was conducted. For non-human primate studies and veterinary studies using client-owned animals, it must be demonstrated the work meets the standards set out in NC3Rs primates guidelines and follows veterinary care best practices guidelines. For veterinary studies informed client consent must also be provided. Livestock Research Today  advises all authors conducting animal research to read and follow NC3Rs ARRIVE guidelines. The guidelines set out the currently accepted procedures for the reporting of research using animals and are available in various translations including Chinese Mandarin. A statement declaring the ethical review committee’s approval must be included in the manuscript. 

Ethics FAQ for authors
Q: Do I need ethics approval for retrospective patient data?
A: Yes. Approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human samples.
Q: Do I need patient consent for the use of retrospective data?
A: Informed consent by participants should always be sought. If not possible, an institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable. A statement should be included in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript, regarding the IRB decision.
Q: Do I need ethics approval for a review article or meta-analysis article?
A: No. This will have been obtained by the original authors.
Q: Do I need ethics approval for using samples sourced from commercial providers?
A: Yes. Approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human samples.
Q: If ethics approval was not required, what statement should I include in my manuscript?
A: For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. If the study is judged exempt, a statement from the ethics committee is required. A statement should be included in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript, regarding the decision.
Q: Do I need ethical approval when reporting on veterinary clinical cases?
A: No. For studies using client-owned animals, a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care and involves informed client consent statement should be included in the Materials and Methods section.
Q: Do I need ethics approval for studies involving live animals?
A: Yes. You must specify in the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript, the ethical review committee approval, and the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines followed regarding the animals welfare.
Q: Do I need approval for cells that have been sourced from an accredited commercial provider?
A: No. However, if cells have been gifted, or not sourced from an accredited commercial provider, we require confirmation that the research has been approved by a named institutional review board or ethics committee.

Peer-Review

All manuscripts submitted to Livestock Research Today  undergo single blind peer review. An outline of this process is available on the peer-review schematic. The assigend section Editor and Main Handling Editor or Editor-in-chief will make the final decision based on the assigned reviewers comments. Authors may lodge an appeal against an editorial decision. They should send grounds for their appeal to office@emanresearch.org. The appeal will be heard by the Editor-in-Chief in conjunction with one or more Editorial Board members or Associate Editors. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on the appeal will be final.

Portability of peer review
Livestock Research Today  supports thorough and efficient peer review and has put in place streamlined processes to allow for rapid peer review and avoid unnecessary re-review of revised manuscripts. In cases where a manuscript reporting sound science does not reach the interest level set for a given Livestock Research Today  journal and is rejected, the authors may be offered the option to transfer their manuscript to another Livestock Research Today  provided it is in scope of that journal. In such cases, the peer reviewers’ reports are also transferred to the other journal.

Before the authors are contacted regarding a possible manuscript transfer, the Editor-in-Chief may share the manuscript with the Editors-in-Chief of other Livestock Research Today . Authors, who do not wish their manuscript to be shared with other Livestock Research Today  should mention this in their cover letter. Peer reviewers, who do not wish to have their report shared with other Livestock Research Today  should mention this in the confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief section of their report.

Should authors agree to have their manuscript transferred to another Livestock Research Today  for evaluation it does not imply that their manuscript will be accepted for publication by the other journal. In some occasions the Editor-in-Chief of the receiving journal may decide to conduct their own peer review and/or reject the manuscript.

Peer Review Process Outline

1. Manuscript Submission
   • Author submits the manuscript to the journal.
   • Editorial Office conducts an initial check for completeness and compliance with submission guidelines.
2. Initial Assessment
   • Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or Main Handling Editor performs an initial assessment (1 week).
   • The manuscript is evaluated for scope, originality, and relevance.
   • Decision Point:
     • Reject if the manuscript does not meet basic criteria.
     • Proceed to Peer Review if the manuscript is deemed suitable.
3. Reviewer Selection
   • Editor selects reviewers based on their expertise and availability.
   • Typically, 2-4 reviewers are invited.
   • Reviewers accept or decline the invitation.
4. Review Process
   • Reviewers conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript (2 weeks).
   • Each reviewer submits a detailed review report, including:
     • Assessment of originality, significance, methodology, and clarity.
     • Suggestions for improvement.
     • Recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
5. Editorial Decision
   • Editor, i.e. Section Editor and Main Handling Editor evaluate the reviewers' comments and recommendations (4 weeks).
   • Decision Point:
     • Accept the manuscript as is.
     • Minor Revision required before acceptance.
     • Major Revision needed, requiring another round of review.
     • Reject the manuscript.
6. Author Revision
   • Authors receive feedback and are requested to revise the manuscript (2 weeks).
   • Revised Manuscript is submitted back to the journal.
7. Re-Review (if necessary)
   • Editor may send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers (2 weeks).
   • Reviewers assess the revisions and provide additional feedback.
8. Final Decision
   • Main Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief make the final decision based on the reviewers’ feedback on the revised manuscript (6 weeks).
   • Decision Point:
     • Accept the manuscript.
     • Reject the manuscript if revisions are inadequate.
9. Copyediting and Proofreading
   • Accepted Manuscript undergoes copyediting and proofreading.
   • Authors review and approve the final proofs.
10. Publication
    • Final Manuscript is published in the journal.
    • Authors and readers are notified of the publication.

Schematic Representation

     Submission

→ Initial Assessment (1 week)

→ Reviewer Selection

→ Review Process (2 weeks)

→ Editorial Decision (4 weeks)

→ Author Revision (2 weeks)

→ Re-Review (2 weeks if any)

→ Final Decision (6 weeks)

→ Copyediting

→ Publication (8 weeks)

Special Issue

We kindly request that all manuscripts be submitted online through our user-friendly platform at https://systemcentral.emanresearch.org to streamline the submission process. You'll need to register and create an account on the website to get started. Once you've completed this step, please click on the provided link to access the submission form.

We welcome manuscript submissions up until the designated deadline. Each submission undergoes a meticulous pre-check, and those meeting the criteria proceed to our rigorous peer-review process. Approved papers will be promptly published in the journal upon acceptance and will be featured in the dedicated special volume and issue.

The Guest Editor is appointed to manage and make decisions on the special issue publication. The Guest Editor is selected based on their qualifications, commitment to editorial rigor, and availability for a specific period of time. 

Our journal invites a variety of contributions, including research articles, review articles, and short communications. If you're considering submitting a planned paper, you have the option to send us a title and a concise abstract of around 250 words. This information will be announced on our website's Editorial Office section.

It's important to note that any manuscripts you submit must not have been published previously, nor should they be concurrently under review for publication elsewhere (with the exception of conference proceedings papers). The review process we employ is single-blind and rigorous to ensure the quality of the content we publish.

For comprehensive guidance on manuscript preparation and submission, we encourage you to visit our dedicated Instructions for Authors page.

Before finalizing your submission, we kindly ask you to thoroughly review our Instructions for Authors page. Please be aware that there is an Article Processing Charge (APC) associated with publication in our open-access journal, amounting to $500. To maintain a high standard of English, we recommend authors utilize our English editing service before submitting their work or during the author revision phase. Your commitment to well-formatted and excellently written submissions is greatly appreciated.

Special Issue Process Outline

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Select a Relevant Theme: a theme that addresses current trends and gaps in research is chosen based on journal scope and interest.
• Set Clear Objectives: Editors define what the special issue aims to achieve and its contribution to the field.

2. Assemble an Editorial Team

• Guest Editors: Handling Editor invites experts in the field to serve as guest editors. The Guest Editor is selected based on their qualifications, commitment to editorial rigor, and availability for a specific period of time. Guest Editors make the final decision on the acceptance and rejection of articles. If there is any appeal on decision, Editor-in-Chief will make the final panel decision. 
• Advisory Board: Handling Editor forms an advisory board to provide guidance and lend credibility.

3. Create a Call for Papers (CFP)

• Detailed CFP: Draft a detailed CFP outlining the scope, topics of interest, submission guidelines, and deadlines.
• Wide Distribution: Distribute the CFP through various channels including the journal’s website, academic networks, and social media.

4. Manuscript Submission and Peer Review Process

• Submission Portal: Ensure submissions are made through the journal’s official submission portal.
• Rigorous Peer Review: Implement a rigorous peer review process involving multiple reviewers to ensure quality.
• Transparency: Maintain transparency in the review process and communicate clearly with authors.

5. Manage the Editorial Workflow

• Timely Decisions: Make timely decisions on manuscript acceptance, revisions, or rejections.
• Revisions: Ensure authors make necessary revisions based on reviewer comments.
• Final Decision: Make final decisions in consultation with the guest editors and editorial board.

6. Ensure Quality and Compliance

• Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical standards in publishing, including conflict of interest and plagiarism policies.
• Formatting and Style: Ensure all manuscripts comply with the journal’s formatting and citation style.
• Indexing Requirements: Follow guidelines for indexing in Web of Science, which include scientific rigor, editorial quality, and citation impact.

7. Prepare for Publication

• Proofreading: Conduct thorough proofreading to eliminate errors.
• Layout and Design: Ensure the special issue has a consistent layout and design.
• Online and Print: Prepare both online and print versions if applicable.

8. Promotion and Dissemination

• Launch Event: Organize a virtual or physical launch event to promote the special issue.
• Marketing: Use email campaigns, social media, and academic conferences to promote the special issue.
• Engage with Authors: Encourage authors to promote their articles within their networks.

9. Post-Publication Management

• Monitoring Impact: Track citations, downloads, and the overall impact of the special issue.
• Feedback: Gather feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers to improve future special issues.
• Reporting: Provide a report on the special issue’s performance to stakeholders.

Conference Abstract

The journal publishes conference abstracts with a combined and solicited review panel. The conference abstracts are managed by the Journal's Handling Editor and a Section Editor, in collaboration with the conference committee and the society or organization review panel. The decision on abstract acceptance is based on merit, quality, scientific rigor, novelty, and the scope of the journal. However, our editorial decisions are conducted by our expert in-house editors (i.e. Section Editors, Main Handling Editor, and Editor-in-Chief) who have no affiliations to publishers or research institutes – removing any potential bias or conflict of interest.

The outline of managing the conference Proceedings is below:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Clear Theme: Establish a clear and focused theme or set of topics for the conference that align with current research trends.
• Objectives: Define the objectives of the conference and the expected outcomes.

2. Establish a Scientific Committee

• Expert Panel: Form a scientific committee comprising experts in the field to oversee the abstract review process.
• Roles and Responsibilities: Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of committee members.

3. Call for Abstracts (CFA)

• Detailed Announcement: Create a comprehensive CFA detailing the conference theme, submission guidelines, deadlines, and evaluation criteria.
• Wide Dissemination: Distribute the CFA through the conference website, academic mailing lists, social media, and relevant journals.

4. Abstract Submission Process

• Submission Portal: Use a reliable abstract submission system to manage submissions efficiently (e.g., EasyChair, Ex Ordo).
• Submission Guidelines: Ensure guidelines are clear regarding format, length, and content requirements.

5. Peer Review Process

• Reviewer Selection: Select qualified reviewers with relevant expertise to evaluate the abstracts.
• Double-Blind Review: Implement a double-blind review process to ensure impartiality.
• Evaluation Criteria: Establish clear evaluation criteria such as originality, scientific rigor, relevance to the conference theme, and clarity.

6. Abstract Acceptance and Notification

• Timely Decisions: Make timely decisions on the acceptance or rejection of abstracts.
• Feedback: Provide constructive feedback to authors, whether their abstracts are accepted or rejected.
• Acceptance Letters: Send formal acceptance letters with information on presentation format (oral or poster), registration, and any required revisions.

7. Preparation for Presentation

• Author Guidelines: Provide detailed guidelines to authors on preparing their presentations or posters.
• Rehearsals: Organize rehearsal sessions if possible, to help presenters prepare.

8. Conference Proceedings Preparation

• Editorial Quality: Ensure all accepted abstracts are edited for clarity and formatted according to the conference guidelines.
• Proceedings Compilation: Compile the abstracts into conference proceedings, ensuring consistency and completeness.
• Digital Object Identifier (DOI): Assign DOIs to each abstract for ease of reference and citation.

9. Submission for Indexing

• Web of Science Submission: Submit the conference proceedings to Web of Science for indexing. Ensure compliance with their criteria, which includes the scientific quality of the abstracts, editorial board standards, and the overall impact of the conference.
• Compliance Check: Double-check that the proceedings meet all Web of Science requirements for conference materials.

10. Post-Conference Activities

• Feedback Collection: Collect feedback from participants to improve future conferences.
• Impact Monitoring: Monitor the citation and usage of the conference abstracts to gauge their impact.
• Reporting: Report the outcomes and success of the conference to stakeholders and consider publishing a summary in relevant journals or platforms.

Use of AI tools declaration

We follow COPE's guidelines and policies regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools: COPE Policy on AI tools