Reviewer Resources and Rubrics

Ethical Commitment and Confidentiality

Reviewers play a key role in maintaining the scientific quality and ethical integrity of Nepalese Veterinary Journal (NVJ) publications. Reviews should be conducted with fairness, professionalism, and respect for confidentiality.

Confidentiality

• All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential and used solely for the purpose of peer review
• Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, or store manuscripts in public or unsecured locations
• Reviewers must not use any unpublished material, data, ideas, or methods from a manuscript for personal, academic, or professional advantage
• Manuscripts and related files should be deleted or securely stored after the review process is completed, in accordance with institutional best practices

Conflicts of Interest

• Any potential conflict of interest, whether personal, financial, institutional, or academic, must be disclosed promptly to the Editorial Office
• Reviewers should decline the invitation if a conflict could affect objectivity or create the appearance of bias
• Conflicts may include recent collaboration with authors, shared institutional affiliation, direct competition, financial relationships, or personal relationships

Professional Conduct and Constructive Tone

• Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and focused on improving the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript
• Comments should be respectful, professional, and specific; personal criticism of authors is not acceptable
• Reviewers should clearly distinguish major issues (such as validity, methodology, ethics, and interpretation) from minor issues (such as clarity, grammar, and formatting)
• If potential misconduct is suspected, including plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or unethical research, reviewers should report concerns confidentially to the Editorial Office and must not contact the authors directly

Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review

• Reviewers must not upload, paste, or share any part of a manuscript, figure, table, or dataset with public AI platforms or external language-model tools
• AI tools may be used only to improve the grammar or readability of the reviewer’s own comments, provided that no manuscript content is shared
• AI must not be used to analyze, summarize, interpret, or generate reviewer feedback based on the manuscript under review
• Undisclosed or prohibited AI use violates NVJ confidentiality policy and may result in removal from the reviewer database

Structured Review Form and Scoring Rubric

NVJ encourages reviewers to provide fair, detailed, and helpful feedback to guide both authors and editors. Reviewers may use the criteria below to score the manuscript and provide optional comments to justify their assessments.

Evaluation Criteria and Focus of Assessment

• Significance and Novelty: Is the research original, relevant, and meaningful to veterinary science or practice?
• Methodological Rigor and Study Design: Are the study design, sampling, and analytical approaches appropriate and clearly described? Do the data support the interpretations?
• Statistical Analysis and Interpretation: Are statistical methods sound, clearly reported, and correctly interpreted?
• Ethical Compliance and Transparency: Are ethical approvals, consent statements, and data integrity issues properly addressed?
• Clarity, Organization, and Language Quality: Is the manuscript well structured, logically organized, and clearly written?
• Data Availability and Reproducibility: Are data, methods, and supplementary materials sufficient to allow verification or replication?
• Reference Quality and Contextualization: Are references current, relevant, and properly cited? Does the manuscript accurately reflect the existing literature?
• Overall Recommendation and Justification: Do the reviewer’s comments clearly support the overall recommendation?

How to Provide Reviewer Comments

Comments to Authors

• Provide clear, numbered points that authors can respond to easily
• Identify major concerns first, followed by minor issues
• When possible, suggest practical solutions or improvements rather than only identifying problems
• Cite specific sections, page numbers, line numbers, tables, or figures to make feedback clear and actionable

Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

• Use this section to raise concerns that should not be shared directly with authors, such as suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or data integrity issues
• Describe concerns clearly and factually, with specific examples where possible

Decisions and Recommendations

Editors use reviewer input to make balanced, evidence-based decisions. Reviewers are asked to select one recommendation and ensure that their written comments are consistent with the selected option.

Possible Recommendations

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minimal or no changes
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is generally sound but requires minor clarifications or improvements
• Major Revision: The study is valuable but requires substantial changes in methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation before reconsideration
• Reject: The manuscript has fundamental methodological or ethical flaws that cannot be resolved through revision

Reviewer Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers should disclose any relationships that could influence impartiality, including personal or professional relationships with authors, recent collaborations, shared institutional affiliations, financial interests, or strong intellectual conflicts.

Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgement

NVJ values the time and expertise contributed by its reviewers. Reviewer recognition may include:

• Inclusion in the journal’s annual reviewer acknowledgment list or website
• Issuance of a certificate of appreciation upon request
• Nomination of exceptional reviewers for recognition by the Editorial Board
• Support for documenting peer-review contributions through ORCID reviewer records

Need Assistance with the Review Process?

Reviewers with questions regarding timelines, confidentiality, ethical concerns, or review procedures are encouraged to contact the NVJ Editorial Office through the journal website.

Reviewer Interest Form

Researchers, academicians, and veterinary professionals who wish to serve as reviewers for the Nepalese Veterinary Journal are invited to complete the registration available on the journal website. Reviewer service at NVJ is voluntary and unpaid, and participation is based on academic expertise and willingness to contribute to the peer-review process. The information provided will be used solely for reviewer selection and assignment purposes and will be kept confidential.

Prospective reviewers may be asked to provide details including their academic or professional affiliation, areas of expertise, research interests, reviewing experience, and contact information. Submission of the form does not guarantee reviewer appointment but allows the Editorial Office to identify suitable experts for future manuscript reviews.