Confidential review · methodological assessment
Guidelines for Reviewers
JVHC reviewers assess veterinary manuscripts for validity, ethical conduct, reporting quality and relevance. Reviewing for JVHC confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of a reviewer’s own manuscripts.
- Review model
- Single-blind
- Reviewer identity
- Not disclosed to authors
- Author contact
- Not permitted
- Confidentiality
- Required
Before accepting an invitation
Accept responsiblyConfirm expertise, independence and availability
- Subject and method expertiseAccept only when able to assess the central veterinary question and the relevant study design or analysis. Identify where additional expertise is needed.
- Competing interestsDecline or disclose financial, collaborative, institutional, supervisory, personal or intellectual interests that could affect impartiality.
- AvailabilityAccept only when able to provide a careful review. No public mandatory turnaround is stated; communicate promptly if circumstances change.
- Identity and assistanceDo not transfer the invitation or involve another person without explicit journal authorization.
Confidentiality and appropriate use
Confidential scholarly assessmentThe manuscript is not a source for private reuse
Secure handling
Do not share manuscript text, figures, data, correspondence or reviewer access details. Delete local copies when the review process is complete.
No direct author contact
Send questions and concerns through the editor. Do not attempt to identify or contact authors outside the managed process.
AI and external tools
Do not upload confidential manuscript material to AI systems or external services without explicit authorization and adequate confidentiality safeguards.
No appropriation
Do not use unpublished ideas, methods or results for personal, scholarly or commercial advantage.
Scientific review
Validity · clarity · reproducibilityEvaluate the evidence, not the author
- Question and contributionIs the veterinary question clear, within scope and supported by an appropriate design?
- Methods and analysisAssess sampling, controls, outcome definitions, statistical methods, uncertainty, reproducibility and whether limitations are acknowledged.
- Results and conclusionsCheck internal consistency among text, tables and figures, and whether conclusions stay within the evidence.
- Data availabilityAssess whether the statement is clear and whether restrictions based on owner privacy, permits or legal agreements are explained.
- Citation integrityRecommend only directly relevant literature. Do not require citation of the reviewer’s work or other references to inflate citation counts.
Veterinary ethics and reporting
Welfare · consent · permitsFlag missing safeguards confidentially
- Animal welfareCheck oversight details, approval identifiers where applicable, handling, analgesia or anaesthesia, welfare monitoring and humane endpoints.
- Consent and privacyCheck owner consent for identifiable animals, case information, images and farm-specific data.
- Wildlife permitsCheck applicable capture, sampling, transport, access and conservation permissions.
- Reporting guidelinesUse ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT 2025, STROBE or PRISMA 2020 as appropriate to the design.
- Integrity concernsReport suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate publication or unethical work confidentially to the editor; do not investigate independently.
Writing the report
Structured commentsMake recommendations specific and evidence-based
Brief assessment
Summarise the question, study design and principal contribution in neutral language.
Major comments
Identify issues that affect validity, ethics, interpretation or reproducibility, and explain what evidence or revision is needed.
Minor comments
List bounded corrections to clarity, reporting, figures, tables or references without replacing the author’s voice.
Confidential note
Use the editor-only field for conflicts, integrity concerns or contextual information that should not be sent directly to authors.
Separate essential scientific concerns from optional improvements. Maintain a respectful tone and do not recommend acceptance or rejection as a substitute for explaining the evidence.
Revisions and reviewer status
Independent serviceAssess the response against the original concern
On revision, check whether major points were addressed, whether new claims are supported and whether changes introduce inconsistencies. Do not reopen resolved issues without a clear scientific reason.
Reviewer participation is based on verified identity and relevant expertise. An expression of interest may include a curriculum vitae, ORCID and subject areas, but registration does not guarantee an invitation or appointment.
Review the governing policies
Use the journal policy page when assessing ethics, authorship, data, AI use and post-publication integrity.