Stewardship · recusal · evidence-based decisions
Guidelines for Editors
JVHC editors safeguard scope, research integrity, animal welfare and the independence of peer review. Editorial appointment or service confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of an editor’s own work.
- Review model
- Single-blind
- External reviewers
- At least two
- Conflicted editor
- Must recuse
- Fees affect decisions
- No
Editorial authority
Scope · review · decisionDecisions require independent scholarly judgment
- Scope and readinessAssess fit against the approved veterinary scope, and identify missing ethics, reporting, data or authorship information before review.
- Reviewer selectionInvite at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise. Do not rely on author suggestions without conflict and identity checks.
- Decision lettersExplain the evidentiary basis for the decision, distinguish essential revisions from optional advice and avoid asking authors to overstate conclusions.
- Final responsibilityReviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision. The handling editor is responsible for a fair, reasoned and documented outcome.
Conflicts, recusal and confidentiality
Independence · secure handlingDo not handle a manuscript when independence is in doubt
Mandatory recusal
Editors must not handle their own submissions, work by close collaborators, or manuscripts affected by financial, professional or personal interests. Another unconflicted editor must oversee the usual review.
Confidential material
Manuscripts, reviewer identities, reports and correspondence are confidential. They must not be shared or reused beyond the editorial task.
AI and external systems
Do not upload manuscripts or reviews to generative AI or other external systems when confidentiality, retention and data use cannot be assured.
Commercial separation
APCs, waiver requests, membership and service relationships must remain outside the scientific decision.
Veterinary integrity checks
Welfare · methods · dataAssess the evidence and its ethical basis
- Animal ethics and welfareCheck the oversight body, approval identifier where applicable, welfare monitoring, humane endpoints and methods used to minimise harm.
- Owner consent and privacyRequire written consent for identifiable animals, case details, images and farm-specific information.
- Wildlife researchCheck collection, access, transport and conservation permits and the relevance of the veterinary question.
- Methods and statisticsUse reviewers able to assess design, sampling, outcome definition, analysis, uncertainty and reproducibility. Seek additional expertise when needed.
- Reporting and dataCheck the appropriate ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE or PRISMA standard and require a data-availability statement.
Difficult decisions and concerns
Document · refer · resolveEscalate rather than improvise
- Conflicting reportsIdentify the underlying scientific disagreement, seek clarification or additional review where necessary, and make a reasoned decision rather than counting votes.
- Suspected misconductPause the decision and refer concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship or unethical research through the journal integrity process.
- Appeals and complaintsPreserve the decision record and ensure that a procedural complaint is assessed separately from ordinary disagreement with scientific judgment.
- Post-publication issuesRespond proportionately to credible concerns and support corrections, expressions of concern or retractions when the record requires them.
Appointment standard
No automatic registrationEditorial roles are vetted
Editorial appointments require verified identity, current affiliation, relevant veterinary expertise, a curriculum vitae, ORCID where available and disclosure of interests. Registration alone does not create an appointment.
Editors should accept work only within their competence, remain current in the field and alert the journal when circumstances affect their ability to serve independently.
Use the journal policy framework
Editors should apply the same ethics, authorship, data and post-publication standards described on the public policy page.