Step 1: Assessing Study Intelligibility
The primary goal of the initial read-through is to determine whether the study is comprehensible and logically structured. Key considerations include:
- Clarity and significance of the research question – Is the research question clearly defined and of genuine importance?
- Alignment of study findings with the research question – Does the study provide a clear and well-supported answer to the research question?
- Evidence-based claims – Are all claims backed by appropriate data?
- Relevance and novelty – Is the study sufficiently innovative and appropriate for the journal?
- Target readership – Who would find this study valuable?
- Study design – Is the design appropriate for the research question?
- Potential flaws – Are there any fundamental weaknesses in the methodology?
- Technical rigor – Does the paper exhibit strong scientific and technical robustness?
Step 2: Reflection Period
After the first reading, set the paper aside for a few days before returning for a more thorough review. This pause allows for a fresh perspective and a more critical assessment.
Step 3: Content Analysis
A detailed review of the content should be performed, forming the basis of the major comments section in the peer review report. Focus on identifying substantive issues with methodology, data interpretation, and logical consistency.
Step 4: Readability Analysis
A secondary read-through should assess readability and clarity, forming the minor comments section. This includes suggestions for improving language, formatting, and minor errors.
Step 5: Constructing the Review Report
Compile your findings into a structured report, including a concise summary and an assessment of the study’s suitability for publication.
Key Sections for Assessment
Title
A title should be clear and concise, avoiding unnecessary complexity or exaggerated claims. Key considerations:
- Does the title accurately reflect the study’s content?
- Is it engaging while remaining transparent?
- Does it highlight the key and novel findings without unnecessary hype?
Abstract
A strong abstract succinctly summarizes the study by addressing five key questions:
- Rationale – Why was this study conducted?
- Approach – What methods were used?
- Execution – How were the methods applied?
- Findings – What were the key results?
- Implications – What do the results mean?
Introduction
The introduction should provide adequate background information and properly referenced recent research. Key considerations:
- Does it provide enough context for the journal’s audience?
- Does it accurately present the current state of research with balanced references?
- Does it clearly establish the study’s necessity and objectives?
Methods
Assessing the methodology requires determining whether the approach is scientifically sound. Key considerations:
- Is the methodology described in sufficient detail?
- Are appropriate controls used?
- Are outcomes clearly defined?
- Were validated instruments and techniques employed?
- Are statistical analyses sound and errors properly reported?
- Is the study reproducible?
- Was the research conducted objectively and ethically?
If additional data or methods are needed, ensure that recommendations are essential rather than merely preferable.
Results and Discussion
Results should be clearly presented and adequately supported by data. Important questions to address:
- Are the results logically presented and of high quality?
- Do the findings support the study’s main conclusions?
- Are claims supported by data without manipulation?
When reviewing the discussion:
- Does the conclusion align with the study’s aims?
- Are alternative explanations for the results considered?
- Are the broader implications of the study discussed in relation to existing research?
Peer Review Report Structure
Tone and Constructive Feedback
- Offer constructive criticism with specific recommendations for improvement.
- Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.
- Maintain a professional and respectful tone.
- Avoid inflammatory or biased language.
Structure of the Report
1-2 Paragraph Summary
- What were the study’s objectives?
- What were the key findings, and how do they advance the field?
- Does the study demonstrate technical rigor?
Major Comments
- Identify significant concerns, such as:
- Study design flaws
- Inappropriate analyses
- Insufficient data
- Incorrect referencing
- Misinterpretation of results
- Unaddressed limitations
Minor Comments
- Highlight smaller, more technical issues, including:
- Clarity improvements
- Minor data analyses
- Typographical or formatting errors
Conclusion
Summarize your overall impression of the study, including whether it is suitable for publication and any required revisions.
Ethical Considerations in Peer Review
Plagiarism Checks
Plagiarism screening is the journal’s responsibility, not the reviewer’s.
Implicit Bias Awareness
Be mindful of unconscious biases related to the author’s country of origin, institutional affiliation, gender, or identity. Ensure that all assessments are based purely on the study’s scientific merit rather than external factors.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI)
Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, presently do not meet our authoring standards. The attribution of authorship inherently entails accountability for the work, which cannot be adequately assigned to LLMs. The utilization of an LLM must be well documented in the Methods section, or in an appropriate substitute section if the Methods section is absent, of the publication. The utilization of an LLM (or alternative AI tool) for "AI-assisted copy editing" does not require disclosure. Authors may utilize a LLM or other AI assistant as a writing aid, provided they adhere to the aforementioned privacy and confidentiality stipulations, to assist in refining, correcting, formatting, and editing text and tables. Contributions of this nature must be specified in the Acknowledgements section, including the name and version of the AI. Authors bear complete accountability for the content.
These AI-assisted enhancements may encompass modifications in phrasing and formatting of the texts, but exclude generative editorial tasks and independent content creation. In every instance, human accountability for the final text version is essential, along with the authors' consent that the modifications accurately represent their original work.
The Archives of Veterinary Medicine does not permit figures or images generated by, or with the aid of, generative AI models, unless they are explicitly integral to the study result and distinctly identified as such.
The utilization of non-generative machine learning technologies to alter, amalgamate, or augment existing images or figures must be stated in the pertinent caption upon submission.