Guidelines for Peers

As a fundamental part of its editorial process, the Revista de la Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y de Zootecnia submits all original research articles, review articles, and case reports to a peer-review process. The purpose of this process is to determine the relevance, scientific quality, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript in order to support a decision regarding its potential acceptance or rejection for publication.

Peer reviewers, according to their academic and disciplinary expertise, are expected to assess not only the formal aspects of the manuscript but also its methodological rigor, the validity of the results, originality, scientific relevance, and its contribution to knowledge in the fields of veterinary medicine, animal science, and animal production.

The journal adheres to international peer-review standards established in Section 5 of the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as to the provisions outlined in Section 4 of the WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications. Through these guidelines, the journal promotes integrity, transparency, and the responsible use of emerging technologies in the editorial process.

The peer-review process follows a double-blind model for all manuscripts submitted to the journal, with the exception of editorial notes. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other. For this purpose, the editorial team removes all identifying information from the manuscript before sending it to reviewers and ensures that authors do not have access to the personal or institutional information of the reviewers. If a reviewer believes they may be able to identify one or more of the manuscript’s authors, they must promptly inform the editorial team. If such identification is confirmed, the reviewer must refrain from conducting the review in order to prevent conflicts of interest or other unethical practices.

The selection of peer reviewers is the responsibility of the editorial team, which conducts a systematic search for experts through recognized academic sources, such as the database of the Servicio de Información de Evaluadores Pares Reconocidos del Sistema Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, and, when necessary, platforms such as Google Scholar or specialized scientific databases. Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials (specialization, master's degree, or doctoral degree) and their research trajectory, evidenced by relevant publications on the subject matter of the manuscript.

Once selected, peer reviewers are invited to participate in the evaluation process through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) portal or, if they do not have a registered user account, through communication via the journal’s official email address (rev_fmvzbog@unal.edu.co). The invitation includes the title and abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance of the invitation, the reviewer receives the manuscript for evaluation under the double-blind review model. The evaluation forms have been developed in accordance with the criteria established in the Instructions for Authors and are available at the following links:

Evaluation form for research articles
Evaluation form for case reports
Evaluation form for review articles

Peer reviewers who agree to participate in the evaluation process must complete the evaluation form corresponding to the manuscript type in full, addressing each of the established criteria. At the end of the form, reviewers must provide an editorial recommendation, which may correspond to one of the following categories: accept without modifications, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, or reject the manuscript. Reviewers may also provide comments and suggestions aimed at improving the quality of the article, either through annotations directly in the manuscript or through the evaluation form.

Once the review has been completed, reviewers must submit the evaluation documents (the completed evaluation form and, when applicable, the annotated manuscript) through the journal’s submission system or through the communication channel used for the review process. The standard deadline for submitting the evaluation is thirty (30) calendar days from the date the invitation is accepted. However, reviewers may request a reasonable extension, which will be assessed by the editorial team.

In accordance with Recommendation 4 of the WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications, peer reviewers must explicitly declare the use of chatbots or other artificial intelligence–based tools employed during the review of the manuscript or in the preparation of the evaluation and associated correspondence. This declaration may be included in Section 4 (Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools) of the evaluation form and/or in the communication through which the review is submitted to the journal.

Participation as a peer reviewer is ad honorem. Once the evaluation has been received and validated, reviewers may receive a certificate of participation in recognition of their academic contribution, if they so wish. The work of expert reviewers constitutes an essential component of the editorial process, as their informed assessments support editorial decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and contribute to improving the scientific quality of the articles published.

The information provided by reviewers in the Reviewer Personal Information Form (including institutional affiliation, academic background, areas of expertise, and links to profiles in academic networks) is used exclusively for editorial management, the issuance of participation certificates, and the systematization of the peer-review process in the journal’s internal databases and in the OJS platform. The processing of this information is carried out in accordance with the journal’s Personal Data Processing Policy and the applicable regulations on data protection.