Peer review policy：
Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition (CJAN) operates a single-blind peer review process, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
1. The corresponding author is aware of the standard of page charges of CJAN, and accepts this standard.
2. All signature authors should do substantial contributions to the research. All listed authors should agree to contribute to CJAN and sign copyright transfer agreement.
3. The submission should be wrote based on our writing guideline. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. No plagiarism. No fraudulent use of data. No multiple submissions.
4. Authors should cite the work and/or words of others after acquiring permission. It is authors’ duty to provide published literatures. If the work is supported by a fund, its full name should be listed.
5. The authors accept the established procedures for selecting manuscripts for publication of CJAN.
6. 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’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
1. Editors should deal with every manuscript fairly and promptly, and make decisions of submission or rejection based on the scientific, innovative and readability of the paper itself and the matching degree with the acceptance range of the journal.
2. Editors should check the duplicate of the submitted paper by academic misconduct checking system. When the editor finds that there are papers that violate the academic norms, he or she can take appropriate measures.
3. Editors must ensure that every paper accepted by the journal is subject to peer review, and should not have a conflict of interest with the article under review.
4. Editors should not be biased against the author’s affiliation, gender, race, professional title, academic honor, etc.
5. Editors should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the authors and reviewers, and the reviewer's information should remain confidential.
6. Editors should maintain the authenticity of the review records, and have the obligation to safekeep and keep confidential any data of the paper.
7. Editors should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process, and avoid reviewers who have conflicts of interest with authors.
1. Reviewers must give objective and fair evaluations of manuscripts, and express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments to assist authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.
2. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have any potential conflicts of interest.
3. Reviewers should abide the confidentiality principle of peer review, and do not disclose the content and relevant information of the manuscript to any unrelated person during or after the review.
4. Reviewers are not allowed to misappropriate ideas from manuscripts under review for personal advantage. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work to further their own interests.
5. Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor, cannot entrust others without authorization.
6. Reviewers should check whether there is any academic misconduct such as repeated publication, plagiarism, manipulation and forgery.
1. Put an end to academic misconduct through CNKI sci-tech periodical academic misconduct checking system, publisher always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.2. For accepted manuscripts, if academic misconduct is found, our journal has the right to withdraw the manuscript.