The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

 

Scope of the Journal

The Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science (SJLAS) is advancing knowledge about comparative medicine and laboratory animal science and welfare through the publication of peer-reviewed articles about animal models, animal biology, laboratory animal medicine, laboratory animal pathology, animal behaviour, animal biotechnology and related topics. Articles include original scientific projects, technical reports and reviews about basic and applied laboratory investigations, clinical investigations, and case studies, as well as informed and thoughtful opinions relevant to the humane care and use of laboratory animals.

The Journal emphasis the principles of the 3R’s and supports the Arrive guidelines for reporting animal research and in-vivo experiments (https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines).

 

Before Reviewing

Please consider the following:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interests?

If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.

Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer.

 

Conflict of interest

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests, please do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office. The examples of the conflict of interest:

• If you have co-authored publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
• If you are supervising or have supervised the doctoral work of any of the authors or are or have been supervised by any of the authors
• If you receive professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
• If you have a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
• If you have a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed

However, it is not considered a conflict of interest if you have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project or if they have co-organized an event.

 

The Review

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

• Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication?
• Does the Abstract (Summary) clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
• Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
• Are the experimental methods described comprehensively?
• Are the statistical methods described comprehensively?
• Are the illustrations and tables all relevant: are the captions clear?
• Is the text clearly presented and well organised?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
• Are the conclusions clear and concise?
• Are the references current and appropriate?
• Is the language acceptable

 

Questions to consider

The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.

 

Final Comments

All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party. If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first. Please do not contact the author directly.

 

Make a recommendation

Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal will vary but the key decisions are:

• Acceptable
• Acceptable with minor revision, as indicated in the comments
• Acceptable with major revision as indicated in the comments
• Unacceptable in its present form for the reasons (i.e. Subject area, scientific content, ethical/animal welfare concerns) indicated in my report.
• Rejected, but authors advised that a completely reworked paper addressing the issues of concern. Might be suitable for resubmission and evaluation.

 

Next Steps

Please complete the “Reviewer’s Report” form by the due date. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.