Publication and Peer Review in Veterinary Science: A Guide for Authors

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-11

Key Takeaways

• Adherence to Reporting Standards is Paramount: Before submission, confirm the study meets ethical and reporting standards for animal research, specifically aligning the study design with appropriate guidelines from the EQUATOR Network library, with the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 being the minimum standard for animal studies. This includes documenting ethical approval details, authorization numbers, and welfare statements within the methods section.
• Transparency in Animal Research is Ethically Mandated: Research involving animals must be transparently reported to inform clinical practice, policy, and animal welfare, and to uphold the 3R principles (reduce, refine, replace). This necessitates detailed reporting of animal numbers, species, strain, sex, age, housing, experimental procedures, and statistical methods, as mandated by guidelines like ARRIVE 2.0.
• Species-Specific Considerations for Wildlife Research: Studies involving wild-sourced animals require additional documentation beyond purpose-bred animals, including permits, transport, maintenance, and release details, with journal requirements varying. Consulting WOAH terrestrial animal health standards is recommended for international guidance on animal health and welfare.
• Authorship Integrity and Ethical Conduct: Authorship must be determined based on substantive intellectual contributions before submission, actively avoiding guest and ghost authorship. Ethical issues such as salami slicing and bias in authorship assignment are recurring problems that can be mitigated by agreeing on authorship criteria at project inception.
• Open Science Practices Enhance Reproducibility and Reach: Consider open science practices such as preprinting, open access publishing, data sharing, and protocol pre-registration to improve adherence to the 3R principles and reduce unnecessary replication in animal studies. This includes preparing a data availability statement specifying what will be shared and where.
• Navigating Peer Review and Revision Systematically: Understand the different peer review models (single-blind, double-blind, open) and prepare manuscripts meticulously according to journal instructions. Respond to reviewer comments point-by-point, respectfully addressing substantive concerns with clear explanations of changes made and their location in the revised manuscript.

Veterinary research advances clinical practice, informs policy, and improves animal welfare only when findings reach the scientific community in a usable form. Publication is the mechanism by which new ideas, knowledge, and recent findings are shared with those who have an interest in a particular area, yet many researchers, particularly those early in their careers, are unfamiliar with how the process works and the options available for promoting their work to maximum effect Madden et al., institutional publication. This guide addresses the full pathway from manuscript preparation through submission, peer review, revision, and post-publication dissemination, with attention to the specific obligations that apply to research involving animals.

The intended reader is a veterinary researcher preparing a first or early manuscript, or an established investigator seeking to refine submission strategy. The article answers three practical questions: what standards must a manuscript meet before submission, how should authors navigate peer review and revision, and which publishing practices maximize the value and reach of the work? Later sections of this four-part article cover reporting guidelines, the submission process, responding to reviewers, and open science practices. Species-specific considerations are noted where they arise, but the core principles apply across companion animal, production animal, wildlife, and laboratory animal research.

At a Glance

The Scientific Foundation of Publication

Why Publication Matters in Veterinary Science

Research that is not published cannot inform clinical decisions, shape policy, or reduce unnecessary animal use. The 3R principles, reduce, refine, and replace, depend on transparent reporting. When protocols, data, and findings are published in full, other researchers can avoid duplicating experiments, refine methods based on published details, and build on existing knowledge instead of repeating it Nawroth and Krause, institutional publication. This is particularly consequential for studies using animal models, where the ethical justification for each experiment rests partly on the certainty that the resulting data will be used.

The historical development of veterinary science illustrates this principle. Research stations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries published feeding recommendations and experimental results that became the foundation of modern ruminant nutrition Huntington and Eisemann, institutional publication. Hypothesis-driven, statistically valid experimental designs later produced quantitative information on protein and amino acid requirements, and the internet and international symposia linked researchers across the globe Huntington and Eisemann, institutional publication. Each advance depended on a functioning publication system.

The Ethical Framework Governing Animal Research Publication

Ethical conduct in animal research extends beyond the laboratory into the publication process. Studies of research ethics among animal scientists have identified recurring problems, including guest authorship, ghost authorship, salami slicing, and bias in authorship assignment, with the prevalence of these issues varying by degree level Rugira et al., institutional publication. Authors should determine authorship criteria at project inception, document each contributor's role, and ensure that all listed authors have made a substantive intellectual contribution.

Regulatory frameworks shape what must be reported. In the European Union, Directive 2010/63/EU regulates the use of laboratory animals, but few guidelines address wild-sourced animals, covering permits, experimentation, transport, maintenance, and release after experiments Carrilho et al., institutional publication. A review of studies on wild mice found that after the Directive's implementation, a higher proportion of published studies provided authorisation information, yet there was no significant improvement in reporting of care, accommodation, or methods of killing Carrilho et al., institutional publication. Journal editors should require detailed information from authors, and researchers should provide it proactively even when not explicitly requested.

Reporting Standards and Study Design Transparency

Selecting the Correct Reporting Guideline

Reporting guidelines specify the minimum information required for a transparent and reproducible publication. The EQUATOR Network maintains a comprehensive library of such guidelines, including CONSORT for randomised trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, STROBE for observational studies, and REFLECT for livestock intervention trials. Selecting the guideline that matches the study design is the first step in manuscript preparation, because the guideline dictates the structure of the methods and results sections.

The ARRIVE Guidelines

For any study involving live animals, the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 define the essential items that must be reported. These include the exact number of animals used, species, strain, sex, age, housing conditions, experimental procedures, and statistical methods. The guidelines also require a statement of how the study complies with the 3R principles. Many journals now mandate ARRIVE compliance as a condition of submission, and authors should complete the ARRIVE checklist and include it with the manuscript.

Species-Specific Reporting Considerations

Wild-sourced animals present particular challenges. Unlike purpose-bred laboratory animals, wild animals may be captured, transported, housed, and released, and each step carries welfare and scientific implications that must be documented. The evidence base for best practice in this area is limited, and journal requirements are inconsistent Carrilho et al., institutional publication. Authors working with wildlife should consult the WOAH terrestrial animal health standards for international guidance on animal health and welfare, and should expect to provide more detailed husbandry and release information than reviewers may request.

The Peer Review System

Models of Peer Review

Peer review operates under several models, and authors should understand the differences before selecting a journal. Anonymised peer review, in which reviewers do not know the authors' identities, is designed to reduce bias. Open review, in which reviewer identities and sometimes full review reports are published alongside the article, increases accountability but may discourage candid criticism. Some journals offer data sharing initiatives that make underlying datasets available to reviewers and readers Madden et al., institutional publication. Each model has trade-offs, and the choice should align with the author's preferences for transparency and the norms of their field.

What Reviewers Assess

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on several dimensions: scientific validity, methodological rigour, originality, clarity, and ethical compliance. A manuscript that follows its reporting guideline and the ARRIVE checklist will satisfy most structural expectations. Reviewers also assess whether the conclusions are supported by the data, whether the statistical analysis is appropriate, and whether the discussion acknowledges limitations. Anticipating these questions during writing reduces the likelihood of major revision requests.

Preparing the Manuscript for Submission

The manuscript file itself is the first artefact reviewers and editors will judge. Format it according to the target journal's instructions to authors before submission, not after. Most journals now require line numbering, continuous pagination, and a structured abstract. Confirm whether the journal uses single-blind, double-blind, or open peer review, because this affects how you present author contributions and acknowledgements. In double-blind review, remove all identifying information from the manuscript file, including institutional affiliations in headers, funding statements, and references to your own prior work that would reveal authorship.

The title and abstract carry disproportionate weight in editorial triage. A title should state the species, the intervention or exposure, and the primary outcome. Avoid declarative claims of effect size that the study cannot support. The abstract must stand alone, because many readers will access only this section through indexing databases. Follow the journal's abstract structure exactly, whether unstructured or structured with Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions headings.

Cover letters remain a point of confusion for many authors. The cover letter should state the novelty of the work, its relevance to the journal's scope, and confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere. Do not overstate the importance of the findings. Editors read hundreds of cover letters and respond poorly to hyperbole. If the journal requests suggested reviewers, propose researchers whose work you have cited and who have no recent collaboration with your group. Some journals allow you to list excluded reviewers with justification, such as direct competitors or recent co-authors.

Data Availability and Open Science Practices

Veterinary researchers increasingly face expectations to share data, protocols, and analysis code alongside the manuscript. The open science benefits for animal science researchers include improved adherence to the 3R principles, because transparent reporting of protocols and negative results reduces unnecessary replication in animal studies. Before submission, prepare a data availability statement that specifies exactly what will be shared, where it will be deposited, and under what conditions. Common options include public repositories, supplementary files hosted by the journal, or availability upon reasonable request. The last option is increasingly discouraged by funders and journals.

Preprints offer a mechanism to establish priority and solicit community feedback before or during peer review. Many veterinary journals accept manuscripts that have been posted as preprints, but policies vary. Check the journal's preprint policy before posting. If you post a preprint, ensure the version uploaded reflects the final submitted manuscript and that you update the preprint when the article is accepted.

Pre-registration of study protocols, particularly for clinical trials and systematic reviews, strengthens the credibility of the work. A pre-registered protocol documents the hypotheses, primary outcomes, and analysis plan before data collection. This practice distinguishes confirmatory analyzes from exploratory ones and reduces the risk of p-hacking or selective outcome reporting.

The Submission and Editorial Triage Process

Submission systems vary by publisher, but the sequence is consistent. You will be asked to upload the manuscript file, figures, tables, and supplementary materials separately. Figures require particular attention. Most journals require a minimum resolution of 300 dpi for photographs and 600 dpi for line art. Embed figure legends in the manuscript file, not in the image files themselves. Tables should be editable, not embedded as images, because typesetters need to reformat them.

Editorial triage occurs within days to weeks. The editor assesses scope fit, methodological soundness, and the priority of the findings. Manuscripts that fail scope fit are rejected without external review. Manuscripts with obvious methodological flaws, such as missing control groups, inadequate sample sizes, or failure to follow the ARRIVE reporting guidelines for animal research, may also be rejected at this stage. A desk rejection is not a judgment on the value of your research question. It indicates a mismatch between the manuscript and the journal's current needs.

If the manuscript passes triage, the editor assigns reviewers. The number of reviewers typically ranges from two to four. The editor may also consult a statistical reviewer for complex designs. The time from submission to first decision varies widely, from four weeks to six months, depending on the journal and the responsiveness of reviewers.

Responding to Reviewer Comments

The decision letter will arrive with one of several outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject with invitation to resubmit, or reject. Acceptances without revision are rare in veterinary science. Treat a major revision invitation as a positive signal. The editor believes the work has merit and is willing to invest another review cycle.

Structure your response document as a point-by-point reply. Number each reviewer comment and place your response directly beneath it. For each comment, state what you changed and where, citing the page and line numbers of the revised manuscript. If you disagree with a comment, explain your reasoning with evidence, but do so respectfully. Reviewers are volunteers, and the editor will side with them when their concerns are reasonable and you have not addressed them.

Three common failure modes appear in response letters. First, authors respond to a comment by saying they disagree but then make no change. This is acceptable only when the comment is factually incorrect or based on a misreading of the methods. Second, authors make changes but do not describe them, forcing the reviewer to re-read the entire manuscript to find the revisions. Third, authors argue with the reviewer's tone or expertise. Address the substance, never the person.

Revision Strategies and Resubmission

When revising, create a version of the manuscript with tracked changes and a clean version. The tracked version helps reviewers see exactly what changed. The clean version is what the journal will ultimately typeset. Review the revised manuscript in full before resubmission, because authors frequently introduce errors while making revisions.

Prioritize revisions by the source of the comment. Methodological concerns from reviewers carry the most weight. If a reviewer questions your statistical approach, consult a statistician before resubmitting. If a reviewer requests additional analyzes that you cannot perform, explain the limitation clearly and state what the missing analysis would have contributed. If a reviewer requests a citation that you believe is irrelevant, cite it anyway if it does not harm the manuscript. The cost of adding a citation is trivial compared with the cost of another revision cycle.

The table below summarizes common reviewer comment types and the appropriate response strategy.

The Checklist Before Submission

Use the following checklist before every submission. It consolidates the requirements discussed above and adds the administrative items that cause avoidable delays.

• Confirm the manuscript follows the journal's instructions to authors, including reference style, word limits, and figure specifications.
• Verify that all authors have read and approved the final version and meet the journal's authorship criteria.
• Confirm that the corresponding author's contact details are current and that the email address will be monitored during the review period.
• Check that all funding sources are declared and that the funder's role, if any, is described.
• Confirm that institutional animal care and use approval numbers are stated in the methods.
• Verify that the data availability statement is complete and accurate.
• Ensure that the cover letter states the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.
• Check that all figures are legible at the journal's required resolution and that tables are editable.
• Confirm that the ARRIVE checklist, if required by the journal, is completed and uploaded.
• Review the reference list for completeness and accuracy, with particular attention to DOIs and page numbers.

The resubmission after major revision requires the same checklist, plus the response document. Keep the response document concise but complete. A response document that runs to 20 pages for a manuscript of 5000 words suggests that the revisions were extensive and the reviewers will need to re-read the entire manuscript. A response document of two pages for a major revision suggests that the authors did not take the reviewers' concerns seriously. Aim for a response that addresses every comment in a few sentences each, with specific references to the revised text.

Recognized Complications and Failure Modes

The most consequential failure in veterinary publication is not rejection but the publication of work that cannot be reproduced. This failure usually originates before submission, in the gap between what was measured and what was reported. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 specify the minimum information required for transparent and reproducible animal research, and their checklist functions as a diagnostic instrument for this gap. When a manuscript lacks explicit statements about randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation, or exclusion criteria, the deficiency is detectable at the pre-submission stage. A second failure mode is the omission of animal welfare and authorisation details. A review of publication trends in studies of wild-sourced rodents found that after implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU, a higher proportion of published studies provided authorisation information, but there was no significant improvement in reporting of care, accommodation, or methods of killing reporting trends in studies on captive wild mice. Editors now expect this information as a matter of course, and its absence invites immediate triage rejection.

A third failure mode is the misalignment between study design and reporting guideline. A randomised controlled trial reported without CONSORT, or a systematic review without PRISMA, signals to editors that the authors have not engaged with the reporting standards that govern their field. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines library provides the definitive index for matching design to guideline, and consulting it before writing prevents this error.

Common Errors and Corrective Action

Less experienced authors frequently overstate the novelty of their findings. The corrective action is to frame the contribution against the existing literature explicitly, stating what is new and what merely confirms prior work. A related error is the conflation of statistical significance with biological or clinical importance. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals, also p-values, and discuss the magnitude of the observed effect in the context of the species and production system studied.

Authorship disputes constitute a recurring source of delay. The study of research ethics implementation among animal scientists found that the degree of study significantly influenced the presence of ethical issues including guest authors, ghost authors, salami slicing, and bias in authorship assignment research ethics implementation among animal scientists. The corrective action is to agree on authorship criteria at project inception, using the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria as the reference standard, and to document the agreement in writing.

Salami slicing, the fragmentation of one study into several minimal publications, is detected by editors who recognize overlapping datasets across submissions. The discriminating check is whether each paper answers a distinct research question that stands independently.

Limitations of the Current Evidence

The evidence base for publication practice in veterinary science is thinner than in human medicine. Much of the guidance on peer review models, open science, and data sharing derives from biomedical research generally, and its transfer to veterinary contexts is imperfect. The overview of publishing models and resources for maximizing research impact acknowledges that early career researchers are often unaware of the options available, and that the landscape continues to evolve. Expert opinion still differs on the value of preprints in veterinary science, on the appropriate role of open peer review, and on whether journal-based impact metrics retain any useful function in promotion and tenure decisions.

The open science benefits for animal science literature argues that transparency in data and protocols supports the 3R principles, but the practical implementation of data sharing in veterinary science remains inconsistent. Some journals require data deposition, others merely encourage it, and the absence of species-specific data repositories in some fields compounds the problem.

When to Escalate

Referral or consultation is warranted when a manuscript involves regulatory approval, international trade implications, or notifiable disease. The WOAH terrestrial animal health code sets international standards for animal health surveillance and disease control, and authors working with transboundary pathogens should confirm that their reporting complies with these standards before submission. Institutional animal ethics committees and attending laboratory animal veterinarians should be consulted when the study involved procedures that fall outside standard protocols, particularly for wild-sourced animals where guidance is less developed than for laboratory-bred stock.

Statistical review is warranted when the study uses complex designs, hierarchical data, or survival analysis. Many journals offer statistical review during the editorial process, but engaging a statistician before submission is more efficient. Regulatory reporting is required when the research reveals a previously unrecognised adverse effect of a drug, vaccine, or biological product. The AVMA practice resources provide guidance on pharmacovigilance reporting obligations in the United States, and authors should consult their national competent authority for jurisdiction-specific requirements.

Troubleshooting Table

Frequently Asked Questions

How Do I Choose Between Open Access and Traditional Subscription Publishing?

Open Access increases the visibility and reuse of your findings, which supports the 3R principles by ensuring animal data are not wasted. Open Science practices such as Open Access publishing also allow other researchers to build directly on your protocols and datasets. However, article processing charges can be substantial, and some funders mandate specific routes. Check your grant terms before submission. If funds are limited, consider a hybrid journal or a delayed Open Access option. Verify that the journal is indexed in the databases your colleagues actually search, and confirm that the publisher is transparent about fees and peer review practices.

What Should I Do If My Study Cannot Meet Every ARRIVE Item?

The ARRIVE guidelines specify the minimum information needed for transparent reporting, but they do not require that every study use identical methods. The ARRIVE 2.0 checklist asks you to report what was done, including where a measure was not possible. For example, if blinding was impractical in a surgical model, state that explicitly and explain the steps taken to reduce bias. Reviewers respond better to honest disclosure than to omission. If a required item is genuinely irrelevant to your design, say so in the methods or a supplementary file. The goal is reproducibility, not uniformity.

How Do I Handle Publication When My Research Involves Wild-Sourced Animals?

Wild-sourced species carry additional reporting obligations beyond those for purpose-bred laboratory animals. A review of publication trends in studies on wild mice found that after implementation of EU Directive 2010/63/EU, more papers reported authorisation details, but reporting of care, accommodation, and methods of killing remained inconsistent. Editors increasingly expect explicit statements covering permits, transport, housing, and release or euthanasia decisions. Consult the WOAH terrestrial animal health standards for international movement and disease considerations. Keep all permits and institutional approvals on file, and cite them by number in the manuscript.

What Records Should I Keep During the Research to Make Submission Easier?

Maintain a laboratory notebook that records animal identification, housing conditions, interventions, and any deviations from the approved protocol. Keep dated copies of ethics approvals, amendments, and adverse event reports. Store raw data files with version control and a naming convention that matches the figures you will submit. Research ethics implementation among animal scientists has been shown to vary with training level, and doctoral researchers demonstrated better knowledge of institutional review board functions. If you are supervising students, require the same documentation from them. These records become the basis for the completed reporting checklist and protect you if a reviewer requests clarification.

How Should I Respond When a Reviewer Requests Data I Cannot Share?

Distinguish between data you cannot share and data you choose not to share. Confidential client information, proprietary breeding records, and material transfer agreements may legally prevent sharing. In that case, state the restriction in the data availability statement and offer a summary table or aggregated values instead. If the data are simply disorganised, share them. Data sharing initiatives are increasingly expected by journals and funders, and refusal without justification can delay acceptance. If a reviewer asks for raw data that would compromise animal welfare records or client confidentiality, explain the specific constraint and propose an alternative, such as an on-site review by the editor.

How Do I Manage the Costs of Color Figures, Page Charges, and Supplementary Files?

Publication costs vary widely between journals and are not always advertised on the submission portal. Request a full fee schedule before submission, including color charges, supplementary file hosting, and Open Access fees. The publishing process and how to maximize research impact notes that early career researchers are often unaware of the different publishing models and their costs. If your budget is fixed, design figures in greyscale from the start, use vector graphics that remain legible in print, and place large datasets in a repository instead of paying for journal-hosted supplements. Some journals waive fees for authors from low-income countries, so check eligibility criteria before ruling out a target journal.

Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

• Conducting Systematic Reviews of Veterinary Diagnostic Test Accuracy
• Bias in Veterinary Research: Types, Sources, and Mitigation
• Cluster Randomized Trials in Veterinary Research: Design and Analysis

References and Further Reading

• Journeying Through Journals: The Publishing Process and How to Maximize Research Impact.. 2024.
• Effects of Directive 2010/63/EU on research on wild-sourced animals: a review of publication trends in studies on captive wild mice (&lt,i&gt,Apodemus&lt,/i&gt, sp.).. 2025.
• The Academic, Societal and Animal Welfare Benefits of Open Science for Animal Science.. 2022.
• On the Extent of Implementing Research Ethics among Animal Scientists at a National University in the Global South. 2026.
• 386 Past, present and future of protein and N metabolism in ruminants. 2020.
• 352 A Century and a Half of Nitrogen and Protein Metabolism in Ruminants. 2021.
• ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0 for Reporting Animal Research. PLOS Biology, 2020.
• EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines. EQUATOR Network.
• MSD Veterinary Manual, Professional Edition. MSD Veterinary Manual.

Related Articles

• Reporting Qualitative Research in Veterinary Science
• Conducting Systematic Reviews of Veterinary Therapeutic Interventions
• Critical Appraisal Tools for Veterinary Research: A Comparative Review
• Narrative Reviews in Veterinary Medicine: When and How to Write Them
• Conducting Systematic Reviews of Veterinary Diagnostic Test Accuracy

This article is educational professional reference material for veterinary audiences. It is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, individual clinical judgment, current product labeling, or applicable regulatory requirements.