Reviewer Guidelines
Foreword
The Journal of Veterinary Laboratory Research follows a double-blind peer review process that is timely, fair, and ensures the high quality of published articles. To achieve this, the journal relies on reviewers who can provide insightful and constructive feedback within 15 days of accepting a manuscript for review. The review process adheres to established ethical guidelines. Please read the following instructions carefully to understand reviewer responsibilities and ethical expectations.
- Professional Responsibility
Accept a review invitation only if you have the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can provide an unbiased assessment. Potential reviewers should provide accurate and verifiable personal and professional information to the journal, including contact details and relevant expertise.
- Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must promptly disclose any conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or personal relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript. For example, if you currently work at the same institution as any of the authors or have done so in the past three years, you should decline the review.
- Timeliness
Respond to review invitations within a reasonable timeframe, even if you are unable to accept. Accept a review only if you can complete it within the proposed or mutually agreed timeline. If circumstances change and you cannot meet your commitment, or if an extension is required, notify the journal immediately.
- Confidentiality
Maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Do not use information obtained during the review for personal gain, for others, or to harm or discredit anyone. Do not involve others in reviewing a manuscript without explicit permission from the journal.
- Fair and Objective Reviews
Remain unbiased regarding the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, other personal characteristics, manuscript origin, or commercial considerations. If you identify a competing interest that may affect your impartiality, notify the journal immediately and seek guidance.
- Suspected Ethical Misconduct
Report any concerns about research or publication ethics to the journal. This may include suspected misconduct during research, writing, or submission, or significant overlap between the manuscript and other submissions or published work.
- Transferability of Reviews
Some publishers allow reviewer comments to be transferred to other journals within the same publishing group. If requested, reviewers may be asked to permit the transfer of their comments. If a manuscript previously rejected from one journal is submitted to another and you are asked to review it again, be prepared to review it anew, as changes may have been made and evaluation criteria may differ. When appropriate, you may provide your original review to the new journal with proper disclosure of prior review and any changes.
- Preparing Your Report
Format
Follow the journal’s instructions for writing and submitting reviews.
Constructive Feedback
Provide objective and constructive comments that help authors improve their manuscript. Be specific and support your statements with evidence and references where appropriate. Ensure that your comments and recommendations to the editor align with the feedback provided to the authors. Most feedback should be included in the version of the report visible to the authors.
Language and Style
Respect that the manuscript is the authors’ work. Avoid rewriting it in your preferred style. Consider linguistic sensitivities if the authors are writing in a language that is not their first language, and provide feedback respectfully.
Suggestions for Additional Work
Indicate what further analyses or clarifications might improve the manuscript. Do not attempt to expand the work beyond its current scope. Be clear about which additional research, if any, is essential to support the claims made.
Accountability
Prepare the review yourself unless the journal permits involving someone else. Avoid suggesting self-citations solely to increase your or colleagues’ citations or visibility. Do not deliberately prolong the review process, either through delayed submission or by requesting unnecessary information. Editors who choose to provide a review themselves should do so transparently rather than masking it as an additional anonymous review.
- Post-Review Considerations
Where possible, accommodate journal requests to review revised or resubmitted manuscripts. Respond promptly to journal communications regarding your review. If new information emerges after submission that may impact your feedback, notify the journal. Maintain confidentiality and do not disclose manuscript details after peer review without permission from the authors and journal
