Reviewer Guidelines

Dear Esteemed Colleague — thank you for considering contributing your expertise to the JAVS peer-review process. This page walks you through everything you need: what to check before accepting, how to structure your review, what to evaluate, and the standards we ask you to uphold.

The Review Journey

01 Invitation Assess expertise, conflicts, and time before accepting.

02 Read & Evaluate Review against the nine evaluation criteria below.

03 Write Report Executive summary, major and minor issues, confidential notes.

04 Recommend Accept, Minor, Major, or Reject — with justification.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Please consider these three essential questions to ensure you can provide a valuable and timely review:

Expertise Alignment Is the manuscript’s topic consistent with your primary area(s) of expertise? JAVS depends on reviewers with in-depth knowledge to deliver authoritative evaluations.

Conflict of Interest Do you have any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could potentially bias your review? Transparency is paramount — please disclose any potential conflicts to the editor.

Time Commitment Can you dedicate the necessary time and attention to detail required for a thorough and critical evaluation within the specified timeframe?

Structuring Your Review

The goal of peer review at JAVS is to provide authors with constructive and actionable feedback that enhances the quality, clarity, and impact of their research. While we do not impose a rigid structure, we encourage reviewers to deliver a comprehensive evaluation that includes the following five components:

Component	Purpose
Executive Summary	A concise overview of the manuscript’s main findings, strengths, and weaknesses. This gives the editor an immediate understanding of your overall assessment.
Major Issues	Detailed comments on significant flaws or areas needing substantial revision — research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, or overall scientific rigour. Articulate concerns and suggest specific remedies.
Minor Issues	Specific, less critical points needing clarification, correction, or improvement — presentation of data, language clarity, or referencing.
Constructive Feedback	Frame your comments helpfully and encouragingly. Even when recommending rejection, provide clear and specific reasons to help authors understand the limitations and potentially improve future research.
Confidential Comments to the Editor-in-Chief	A section to communicate any sensitive or overarching concerns you do not wish the authors to see.

Key Aspects for Evaluation

Reviewers for JAVS are expected to critically evaluate the following nine aspects, reflecting the standards of high-impact agricultural and veterinary journals:

Novelty & Significance Does the research address a significant gap and provide new insights, methodologies, or findings that advance the field?	Title & Abstract Are they accurate, engaging, and representative? Do they convey the novelty and significance of the work?	Theoretical Framework Is the framework sound and appropriately applied? Is relevant literature adequately reviewed and contextualised?
Impact & Value What is the potential impact on peers, policymakers, or practitioners in agricultural and veterinary sciences?	Methodological Rigour Are methods clearly outlined, scientifically valid, and suitable? Are design, collection, and analysis robust and reproducible?	Clarity of Language Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, grammatically correct English? Is scientific terminology accurate and consistent?
Quality of Visuals Are figures and tables essential, clearly labelled, and effectively presenting the data? Are they of high quality and easy to interpret?	Validity of Results Are results presented accurately and objectively? Are interpretations supported by the data? Are limitations acknowledged?	References Are references relevant, up-to-date, and accurately cited? Do they reflect the breadth of research in the field?

Your Recommendation

At the end of your comprehensive review, please provide one of the following recommendations, justified by your assessment:

Accept The manuscript is of high quality and suitable for publication without further revisions.

Minor Revision The manuscript has merit but requires minor revisions to address specific points.

Major Revision The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions to address major flaws.

Reject The manuscript has significant shortcomings and is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Timeliness & Professionalism

Commitment to Confidentiality

As a reviewer for JAVS, you are entrusted with confidential information. The manuscripts you review must be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

• Do not share the content or discuss the work with anyone outside the formal peer-review process.
• If consultation with a trusted colleague is necessary, prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief is required.
• The colleague’s name(s) must be disclosed in the “Comments to the Editor” section.
• Maintaining confidentiality during any such consultation is paramount.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

To ensure an unbiased and objective review process, please decline to review a manuscript if any of the following apply:

Financial Interest You have a financial interest in the research being reviewed.

Prior Discussions You have had prior discussions about the manuscript with the authors.

Cannot Be Impartial You believe you cannot provide an impartial evaluation.

In such cases, promptly recuse yourself from the review process.