Submissions will initially be assessed by our editors to screen whether they meet criteria on scope, quality and originality of the research, quality of writing language, covering letter and integrity of related information. Editors use multiple methods to detect submitted articles such as SCI-tech periodical academic misconduct checking system of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and iThenticate. The preliminary review process improves publishing efficiency through saving time for both authors and reviewers. Submissions fail the preliminary review process will not be sent out for formal review and will be returned to authors with comments of rejection.

Meat Research adopts strict double-blind peer review process. Specifically, each submission will be reviewed by two experts in the same or similar research field for making a decision. Then the revised manuscript will be reviewed by previous reviewer, and then sent to the Editor-in-Chief for making a final decision.

The final decision is made not merely through calculating and ranking the scores given by reviewers, but more by focusing on evaluating arguments and strengths of disputed issues. Thereby practical comments with clear arguments are provided to authors.

Reviewers will be invited for additional justifications and discussions to resolve disputes. This measure will ensure the just and effectiveness of the review process. Considering time and effort, review for the second time is tried to avoid unless it is really necessary. Additionally, disputes between reviewers and authors will be consulted from either the third or the fourth reviewer, or even experts from our Editorial Board. The whole evaluation process keeps every conclusion is fairly made.

Based on advices from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief will make comprehensive comments on four aspects: decision, academic problems, formats and academic misconduct. The final decision can be one of the three as follows:
a) Accept the manuscript with minor revision.
b) Major revision. Authors need to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
c) Reject. The manuscript is rejected on grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance, major technical and/or interpretational problems.