Peer review process
Manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Evidence undergo an open peer-review process and are sent to a minimum of two reviewers. The names of the reviewers are published alongside the paper with the aim that this will encourage an unbiased and transparent critique of papers.
The Editor shall ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Reviewers are invited to review only if they have suitable expertise in the relevant field.
Authors can provide names, affiliations and contact details of potential reviewers. Suggested reviewers will be used at the Editor’s discretion, and if their contact details can be verified from an independent source.
All disclosures of potential conflicts of interest made by reviewers are reviewed by the Editor in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
Disagreeing with reviewer comments
When revising your manuscript:
Use track changes and address all points raised by the Editor and reviewers within your revision.
If you strongly disagree with a reviewer comment you should provide a polite and scientific rebuttal as to why.
If reviewer comments are conflicting:
Contact us for clarification; in some cases the Editor will prioritise which comments to follow.
Alternatively, follow the comment that most aptly reflects what you wish to convey in your paper. State your decision to go with a comment over the other clearly, logically, and objectively. Your comments will be sent to the reviewer along with your revision for their consideration.
The final decision rests with the Editor-in-chief.
Blogs
Read our blogs and gain an insight into the peer-review process from the authors', reviewers' and Editors' perspectives:
Peer review: what is it and why do we use it?
The benefits of peer review: Q&A with Veterinary Evidence authors
Peer review week: Q&A with Veterinary Evidence reviewers
Pros and cons of different models of peer review