Writing your review

 

You will receive email instructions directing you to our online system Editorial Manager. Here you will fill in an online reviewer form and submit this along with your recommendation. Within the email you will also be sent a table where you can write specific and detailed comments for how the author can improve their paper. Both of these tools are to help you format and write your review clearly so nothing is missed, enabling the author to improve their paper.

The online form is a set of questions asked of all reviewers, the word doc is a table which enables you to write specific feedback based on line number. Each comment you write requires a response from the author, authors are also required to respond with an explanation as to why they have chosen not to go with a suggestion.

You can download the table here:

Reviewer author feedback table

Reviewer’s should:

  1. Raise any suspicions of plagiarism or ethical misconduct with the Editorial Office;
  2. Provide appropriate feedback in a language and style that is sensitive, objective and unbiased;
  3. Exhibit good judgement and provide a fair assessment of both the paper’s strengths and weaknesses which the author can use to improve their paper;
  4. Provide feedback on the science of the paper – you do not need to focus on the grammar as the paper will be copyedited and proofread by the in-house copyeditors should the paper be accepted;
  5. If you feel the paper should either be rejected, revised or accepted please back up your recommendation with reasons why;
  6. Refrain from one-word answers and provide feedback that you would be happy to receive and that will help the Associate Editor in making their overall assessment of the paper.

Reviewers must not:

  1. Deliberately delay the reviewing process;
  2. Contact the author directly;
  3. Impersonate someone else in order to conduct the review;
  4. Use knowledge of the work they are reviewing before its publication to further their own interests;
  5. Agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review;
  6. Agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one a reviewer has in preparation or under consideration at another journal;
  7. Agree to review but pass it onto someone else to complete on your behalf.

As a peer reviewer you have a responsibility to conduct your review ethically. Please take the time to read through the information below as well as the ethical guidelines recommended by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/writing-your-review
veterinaryevidence.org
CC-MAIN-2023-23
37019
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:26RKV4SUTNNIIEDDQGUXAZV5LI4FFRLL
<urn:uuid:6e14c718-928e-48d8-8375-617c76861f26>
2023-05-28T13:45:55Z
35.177.117.148
text/html
sha1:BO5XOWFOGMANQK7VXBOZ2ZCEYK334C6E
<urn:uuid:b792ee46-4b14-4323-ae8a-d7a1c66efbb7>
https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/writing-your-review
response
<urn:uuid:d1d1be12-46c6-44aa-a186-875423cd570b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-208
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/