Guidance for Peer Reviewers
The following are the guidelines given to the reviewers of submissions to the Veterinarski Glasnik. It is advisable that prospective Authors acquaint themselves with these points.
Before writing your review you may find it helpful to browse our advice on Veterinarski Glasnik article types (Author Guidelines), and Editorial Policy for peer reviewers. All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. We will ask you to declare any competing interest that might relate to the article.
If we invite you to review an article please do not discuss it even with a colleague. If you would like to pass it on to someone else to review, please email firstname.lastname@example.org first.
Writing your review
Please give detailed and constructive comments (with references, whenever possible) that will both help the Editor to make a decision on the article and the Authors to improve it. Even if we do not accept an article we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the Author to improve it.
General guidance for all articles: Is the article important? Will the article add enough to existing knowledge? Does the article read well? Does it have a clear message?
Guidance for research articles:
Originality & Importance. Does the work add enough to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add? Please cite relevant references to support your comments on originality. Does this work matter, to whom (e.g. general readers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, or educators)? Is it Veterinarski Glasnik, as a general veterinary journal the right place for it? Research aim of the study: clearly defined and appropriately answered? The overall design of the study: appropriate and adequate to answer the research aim?
Title, abstract, key words, highlights. Reflect accurately what the paper says?
Introduction. Does the introduction indicate the status of current knowledge and motivate why the study was done? Is there a clear hypothesis?
Materials/Methods. Adequately described? Main outcome measure clear? Are the experimental techniques appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study and are full details thereof given? Are the treatments comparable? Are there sufficient experimental units per treatment to justify a comparison? Was the study ethical? Is approval of that clearly stated in the text?
Results. Answer the research aims? Well presented? Are the results presented in an unbiased, clear, concise and complete manner? Do the results justify the conclusions drawn from the work? Are all the tables and figures necessary? Do figures duplicate data in tables? Do tables/figures duplicate data in the text?
Discussion and conclusions. Warranted by and sufficiently derived from and focused on the data? Is the discussion relevant and adequate for full interpretation of results? Discussed in the light of previous evidence? Message clear?
References. Up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
Note: Not all of these points will be relevant for non-research articles. Some types of article need a more specific appraisal, and please use your discretion about the above list when reporting on other types of articles.