; Basrah journal of veterinary research
Basrah journal of veterinary research

Guide for Reviewer

About Journal

Guide for Reviewer

Review instructions
Reviewers are asked to assess the paper and provide guidance to help Editors to make a decision on publication, and constructive feedback to authors on how to improve their manuscript. Attention should be paid to:
- Writing style and appropriateness for a wide audience.
- Scientific accuracy, including statistical analysis.
- Whether the research methods are appropriate, and evidence is provided for the conclusions
- Use of suitable illustrations, tables, and supplementary material to illustrate results.
- Appropriate length — each article should be of the shortest length required to contain all useful and relevant information.
- Ethics — any ethical concerns should be included in the reviewer's report.
- Transparency of information. Papers must include appropriate statements in authors’
contributions, competing interests, ethics (where relevant), data accessibility, and funding. Please note in your comments if you feel that anything is missing.

Submission of reviewer‘s reports
All reviews should include detailed comments for the authors, particularly when rejection or major revision is recommended. The reviewers submit the report via the online reviewer form. Your full review (including your name) will be seen by the Editor or the handling Co-editor.


Decision options
Reviewers are asked to recommend either acceptance (without changes), revisions (major or minor), or rejection. Revision indicates that a paper does not have major problems, and should be acceptable with some further work. Rejection should be reserved for papers that have major problems with experimental design, interpretation, or novelty, or if you have identified misconduct or ethical issues.

Speed of reviewing
The reviewers of the Bas J Vet Res  are asked to report back within 21 days of receiving the
manuscript unless otherwise agreed with the Executive Editor.
If reviewers are unable to report, it is requested that the Editorial Office is informed as soon as
possible so that the assessment process is not delayed. Where reviewers find they are unable to
review the assigned manuscript, the Editor welcomes suggestions of alternative reviewers
competent to review it.