Reviewers' Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific integrity of our journals. We expect our reviewers to provide objective, respectful, and constructive feedback that supports a fair and inclusive peer review process.

Reviewers are responsible for:

Deciding whether or not the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal.
Evaluating manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, and methodological rigor. Reviewers should provide a fair, clear, and detailed assessment, avoiding personal comments or unsubstantiated criticisms.
Completing the review within the requested timeframe (normally two weeks).
Treating the manuscript and its data as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the unpublished information for their own benefit or that of others.
Keeping their identities anonymous to maintain our single-blinded review process policy.
Reporting any suspected misconduct and ethical breaches, including plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, or concerns regarding animal welfare/ethical approval.
Reporting to the journal if there is any potential conflict of interest.

Reviewers must decline an invitation if they share an affiliation with the authors or have a personal/competitive relationship that could bias their judgment.

Reviewers must not request that authors cite the reviewer's own publications (or those of their associates) solely to increase citation counts. Any suggested references must be scientifically necessary and directly relevant to the improvement of the manuscript.

All reviewers are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. By accepting a review invitation, the reviewer confirms their commitment to these standards of integrity and professionalism.

Review Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, critical feedback based on the following core aspects. While expectations may vary by discipline, the questions below should guide your review:

Scope and Relevance

Does the article align with the journal’s stated aims and scope (i.e., equine science rather than unrelated human studies)?

Abstract

Is the abstract accurate, complete, and free of exaggeration?

Study Aims & Rationale

Are the study aims clearly stated and logically justified?
Is the rationale well-explained with sufficient background?

Study Design & Methodology

Is the overall design appropriate, methodologically sound, and robust?
Is the sample size adequate, and are controls properly described?
Are all critical details (e.g., procedures, materials) provided for full reproducibility?
Are relevant reporting guidelines followed (e.g., ARRIVE, CONSORT)?

Ethics & Compliance

Is ethics committee approval explicitly stated where applicable?
Are informed-consent or welfare statements provided when required?
Are Data-Availability, Ethical Approval, and other mandatory statements included?

Statistical Analysis

Are statistical tests appropriate, correctly applied, and fully reported (including effect sizes, confidence intervals, and assumptions)?

Results Presentation

Are data clearly and transparently presented?
Are figures and tables clear, high-resolution, accurately labeled, and easy to interpret?
Is there no unnecessary duplication of data between text and tables/figures?

Discussion & Interpretation

Does the discussion critically engage with the findings in the context of prior research?
Are limitations explicitly acknowledged and adequately discussed?
Are the conclusions well supported by the data, without overstatement?