Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. Clinical Theriogenology complies with the guidelines and best practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Papers submitted to Clinical Theriogenology are subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is 'good science'.
Clinical Theriogenology has a 'blind' review process: Authors are not told who reviewed their paper.
Clinical Theriogenology is dedicated to uphold the integrity of academic publishing and to ensure that the journal is operated with a high degree of integrity, with full anti-plagiarism checking and rigorous peer review. Clinical Theriogenology uses Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) to screen all submissions for plagiarism before publication, but authors, researchers and freelancers can also use iThenticate to screen their work before submission by visiting http://research.ithenticate.com.
Original research and review manuscripts, including those relating to special isssues, submitted to the journal are subjected to external peer review. The decision to accept or reject a paper is based on comments from at least two independent reviewers. Only scientifically qualified persons evaluate reviews and make the decision to accept or reject a submission. Typically, this means the Editor makes a final decision, or Guest Editor, where this is applicable. The Editor is accountable for the quality of editorial decisions.
Articles that have already been published will remain unaltered as far as is possible, though updated with information that an erratum/corrigendum or other amendment exists.
Articles that have already been published will remain unaltered as far as is possible, though updated with information that an erratum/corrigendum or other amendment exists.
Article correction: Should the author discover a major mistake or error in his/her article after it has been officially published online, the Editor will be consulted/notified and if found necessary an Erratum or Corrigendum will be published. There will be links from the online version of the article to the Erratum/Corrigendum and vice versa.
Article Retraction: This action is reserved for articles that are seriously flawed and so the findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon. Articles may be retracted for several reasons. These may include honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty) as well as issues such as research misconduct (data fabrication), duplicate or overlapping publication, fraudulent use of data, plagiarism or unethical research. For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF).
Each of the manuscript’s authors should meet all three of the following criteria:
1. has made a substantial contribution to the design of the study, the collection of empirical material or the analysis or interpretation of the empirical material;
2. has drafted the manuscript or helped revise it, shaping its intellectual content;
3. has approved of the submitted manuscript
Each author should be able to take public responsibility for a portion of the article’s content, and should be able to identify the co-authors who are responsible for the remaining content. Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, transcribed interviews, offered writing assistance or editing, led the research project or a department chairperson who provided only general support. Financial and material support should be acknowledged in a section called Funding, which follows the acknowledgements. Clinical Theriogenology follows the guidelines and criteria for good research conduct with regards to review, editing and authorship, as formulated in the European code of conduct for research integrity.
The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:
The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not affect the discoverability of an author's past work and aids correspondence with colleagues.
As requirements for Open Data are becoming increasingly common, some authors may wish or be required to make their data openly available. In the cases where this is relevant for the journal’s authors, Clinical Theriogenology encourages authors to do so according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). In this case, this should be linked to a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. For further questions about Open Data policy and guidelines please confer with your academic institution.
Editors have very broad discretion in determining whether a submission is an appropriate fit for their journal. Many submissions are declined without external review with a very general statement of the rejection decision. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal.
Authors who receive a "decline submission" decision are strongly advised to submit to another journal. Authors who wish to appeal a journal editor’s decision, must provide strong evidence to contradict the decision. The Editor will look into the peer review process undertaken to see if the decision was made in line with editorial criteria. If so, the Editor’s decision to reject is final.
This journal is archived with Portico for purposes of preservation and restoration.
About the Journal
Clinical Theriogenology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal aimed at publishing papers relevant to clinical practice in theriogenology for veterinary practitioners and professionals, academic clinicians, and veterinary students. Clinical Theriogenology is the official journal of The Society for Theriogenology and The American College of Theriogenologists, and is published with support from the Theriogenology Foundation.
Learn more >>
Most downloaded 2023 papers
Draheim et al. Paraphimosis of 7 years’ duration in a Percheron stallion
Cowley et al.A review of small ruminant Cesarean section: case selection, surgical techniques, care of the neonates, and postoperative care of the dam
Whitler Canine transcervical insemination: history and technique
Koziol et al. Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of testicular degeneration in the bull
