Today’s Veterinary Practice Publication Standards
The articles published in Today’s Veterinary Practice are written and reviewed by subject-matter experts. The editorial team welcomes article submissions and interest from new authors and reviewers. If interested, please see our guidelines below or reach out to our publishing team with any questions.
Manuscript Submission Guidelines for Authors
Today’s Veterinary Practice (TVP) is an official journal of the North American Veterinary Community (NAVC).
TVP provides practical, educational articles that include both standard-of-care and cutting-edge clinical information for the companion animal veterinary practitioner. Articles should emphasize standard-of-care diagnostics and management, but new advances in the field should be presented. TVP (ISSN 2162-3872 print; ISSN 2162-3929 online) is published bi-monthly (Jan/Feb, Mar/Apr, May/June, Jul/Aug, Sep/Oct and Nov/Dec). Most articles are peer-reviewed.
If you are interested in writing an article for TVP, please review the information below and submit your topic submission. To ensure that your proposed topic hasn’t been recently addressed, we recommend that you review past issues:
Note: Please send submissions to email@example.com with the subject line “TVP Article Query”
- Review of a disease/condition, with a focus on improving the knowledge and skill set of the veterinarian.
- Step-by-step tutorial with images, for example radiology, cytology, etc.
- Presentation of a case, complete with history, presentation, diagnostic tests performed, lab results, monitoring/nursing care required to support treatment, and follow-up care.
- Discussion of the clinical impact of a new or improved technique, procedure, medication, or treatment.
- Trends in veterinary medicine that could be addressed in a journalistic style that would not be peer reviewed.
Any applicable clinical topic will be considered. Common topics include:
- Respiratory Issues
- Integrative Medicine
- Interesting Case Reports
- Soft-tissue Surgery
- Pain Management
- Emergency/Critical Care
Please submit article topic submissions in the following format. Manuscripts, if available, will be considered but the following format is preferred:
Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject Line: TVP Article Query
Overview: 50-100 words on the main ideas to be covered and relevance to a practicing veterinarian.
Bulleted Skeleton: A bulleted list of section topics to be covered
Manuscript Submission Guidelines for Authors
As a peer reviewer providing crucial feedback to our journal’s authors you are helping to educate and advance clinical education and practice within your subject area expertise. Your review is vital to improving the quality of papers submitted to and published in our journal.
Preliminary Approval Process
All solicited and unsolicited manuscripts submitted to our journal are critically assessed by our editors. Each solicited manuscript is assigned by the Executive Editor to a Medical Editor, who, along with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, determines whether the manuscript is appropriate for our journal’s readers and whether the author has followed all submission guidelines. All unsolicited manuscripts are evaluated by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor; together they make a decision as to whether to accept the manuscript for publication.
Once a solicited manuscript is accepted during this preliminary review, the Medical Editor then assigns an external peer reviewer with knowledge of the clinical topic discussed in the manuscript. Our journal conducts double-blind peer reviews – authors do not know who the reviewers are and the reviewers do not know who the authors are.
How We Choose Peer Reviewers
If you have been invited to review a paper for our journal, you were either recommended by our Editor-in-Chief or selected, based on your subject expertise, from our pool or reviewers that we maintain in our journal database. When considering whether to accept our invitation, please consider whether the paper is within your field of expertise. We ask that you decline to review should you not have the relevant expertise. If you think you may have a conflict of interest, we appreciate you letting us know what the conflict is. If you must decline, we welcome your recommendations for colleagues who may be interested in reviewing.
The Peer Reviewer’s Responsibility
All external peer reviewers are expected to adhere to our peer review guidelines. Reviewers should provide fair, objective, thorough, and constructive reviews. Reviewers’ recommendations should be based on fact and logic, and reviewers should document and explain their requested clarifications, changes, deletions, or additions, and provide context for their criticisms, particularly if they are completely rejecting the manuscript. When the manuscript has been solicited by the editors, details of the assignment will be shared with the reviewer so that they may determine whether the manuscript meets the objectives of the assignment and the scope and aims of the journal. Except when extensions are agreed upon by the editors and medical editor, reviewers should return their reviews within three weeks.
Peer Review Documentation
Reviewers are asked to complete a checklist for all manuscripts sent to them for review. This checklist is not sent to the authors; however, there is space provided for “Additional Comments.” Completing this section helps the Medical Editor in providing a separate critique that can be submitted to the authors. This critique will contain a brief overview of the reviewer’s assessment of the manuscript, as well as clearly identifying aspects of the manuscript that were considered marginal or unacceptable. A section of the checklist asks reviewers to indicate whether the manuscript should be accepted as is, accepted with revisions, rejected but able to be resubmitted and reconsidered following substantial reworking, or rejected. If the changes requested are substantial, the reviewer should clearly delineate the changes needed to make the manuscript acceptable.
In addition to completing this peer review form, please feel free to make specific comments or changes in the manuscript (track changes turned on). Since our process is a double-blind peer review, these comments will be shared anonymously with the author. Our editorial staff will address any issues with grammar and quality of writing but we welcome your general comments regarding this aspect as well.
While reviewing the article, we would ask that you keep these areas in mind:
- Accuracy: Is the article presenting accurate, up-to-date information?
- Scope: Is the information in the article too broad? Should the topic be narrowed and include more detailed information?
- Completeness: Does the article address all relevant components of the topic at hand? Are any key issues not addressed?
- Fair representation: Is the article biased in any way toward a particular product and/or service?
- Audience: Is the information useful and practical to our audience?
- Conclusions: Are they valid?
- Writing: Is the writing clear, concise, and readable? Should any sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed, or eliminated?
- Supplementary materials: Are tables and figures included to add to the audience’s understanding of the material? Are there materials not included that would be helpful?
- Citations/References: Are all references relevant? Have any important references been omitted?
Note: Reviewer comments are not published in our journal.
The majority of submissions are rejected or receive a “revise and resubmit” assessment in the first round of review. If authors receive a “revise and resubmit” or “accept with revisions” decision, they will be given a deadline for completion of the revised manuscript. “Revise and resubmit” manuscripts will go through another round of external peer review following resubmission. The reviewer will recommend to accept the manuscript, accept with further revisions, or reject the manuscript. In the case of relatively minor revisions, authors will not undergo a second round of external review, but the Medical Editor will ensure the authors have met the revision requirements.
In very rare cases and as determined by our Editor-in-Chief, a manuscript will undergo a third review, usually with a second external peer reviewer. This is a double-blind process. When we determine that we need a second reviewer, we will inform the first reviewer of our decision.
How Many Reviewers Does Our Journal Use?
Generally, we assign one reviewer to each manuscript, and our Editor-in-Chief will referee disputes. In rare cases, we will assign a second peer reviewer.
Any questions about these guidelines or about any manuscript that has been submitted for review should be directed to the editor assigned to the manuscript.
How to Become a Reviewer
You can become a reviewer for our journal by contacting us at email@example.com. Please include your reviewing interests.