OJVR Referee Forms

BACK TO MAIN

©1996-2008 All Rights Reserved. Online Journal of Veterinary Research. You may not store these pages in any form except for your own personal use. All other usage or distribution is illegal under international copyright treaties. Permission to use any of these pages in any other way besides the before mentioned must be gained in writing from the publisher. This article is exclusively copyrighted in its entirety to OJVR publications. This article may be copied once but may not be, reproduced or re-transmitted without the express permission of the editors. Linking: To link to this page or any pages linking to this page you must link directly to this page only here rather than put up your own page.

Online Journal of Veterinary Research

REFEREE FORM

Please return to: Dr V. H Guerrini. Editor-in-Chief, Online Journal of Veterinary Research, onlinejournals@gmail.com

Title: Case study: Ectopic pregnancy, multicentric leiomyoma and mammary carcinoma in a German Sheperd.
Author(s):Dengues EG, Amarilla SP, Pangrazio KK, Cino Ozuna AG, Avalos ARD*
ID: Q2H011211

The Editor must ensure that the OJVR publishes only papers which are scientifically sound. To achieve this objective, the referees are requested to assist the Editor by making an assessment of a paper submitted for publication by:

(a) Writing a report on the reverse side of this form,
(b} Check the boxes shown below under 1. and 2. ( YES or NO) [N.B.A "NO" assessment must be
supported by specific comment in the report.
(c) Make a recommendation under 3.

The Editor-in-Chief would appreciate hearing from any referee who feels that he/she will be unable to review a manuscript within two weeks.

1. CRITERIA FOR JUDGEMENT (Mark "Yes" or "No").

Is the work scientifically sound? Y
Is the work an original contribution? Y
Are the conclusions justified on the evidence presented? Y
Is the work free of major errors in fact, logic or technique? Y
Is the paper clearly and concisely written?NA
Do you consider that the data provided on the care and use of animals (See Instructions to Contributors) is sufficient to establish that the animals used in the experiments were well looked after, that care was taken to avoid distress, and that there was no unethical use of animals? Y

2 PRESENTATION (Mark "Yes" or "No").

Does the title clearly indicate the content of the paper? Y
Does the abstract convey the essence of the article? NA (see changes)
Are all the tables essential? Y
Are the figures and drawings of good quality? Y
Are the illustrations necessary for an understanding of the text? Y
Is the labelling adequate? Y

3. RECOMMENDATIONS(Mark one with an X)

Not suitable for publication in the OJVR
Reassess after major changes
Accept for publication with minor changes X
Accept for publication without changes

4. REPORT : This is an interesting rare case study of ectopic pregnancy in a dog with excellent accompanying clinical descriptions, as well as an emphasis on macroscopic and microscopic pathological evaluations. The discussion shows a good detailed understanding by the authors why the condition may have occurred. The abstract is not well written and I have inserted the appropriate changes. It should have been mentioned here (Abstract), that the normal pregnancy was followed by the death of 3 puppies (ask authors to insert). The introduction covers most of the relevant information and is appropriately referenced. Materials and Methods: The clinical examinations are well described. The results in the form of gross and microscopic pathological with excellent photographs clearly show and describe the lesions. Discussion: This is a good discussion of the pathological and physiopathological observations but it will have to be re-written in some parts for grammatical reasons (authors are not native English speakers), for the final draft (awaiting other reviewers comments re). The findings support Peters LJ 1982 re for true EP. There is a discussion concerning developmental embryology, (the reference to Robbins needs a year, please fix), concerning primary and secondary EP (see Lederer et al 1960) and some speculation as to the origin of the scars. There is also some speculative arguments concerning the origin of the leiomyomas but appropriately supported by references/previous work. Accept with suggested changes. The Discussion has sentences such as "in this case" etc which will have to be chnaged. Thank you for allowing me to review this work RL. Abstract may be published.

BACK TO MAIN

BACK TO MAIN

Online Journal of Veterinary Research

REFEREE FORM

Please return to: Dr V. H Guerrini. Editor-in-Chief, Online Journal of Veterinary Research, onlinejournals@gmail.com

Title: Ectopic pregnancy, multicentric leiomyoma and mammary carcinoma in a bitch.

Enrique G. Dengues ¹, Shyrley P. Amarilla¹, Kristel Kegler Pangrazio², Ada G. Cino Ozuna¹, Andres Avalos. R. D¹*

ID: [OJVR Number ] to be assigned by office

The Editor-in-Chief would appreciate hearing from any referee who feels that he/she will be unable to review a manuscript within two weeks.

1. CRITERIA FOR JUDGEMENT (Mark "Yes" or "No").

Is the work scientifically sound? Yes but no statistical interpretation possible (n = 1)

Is the work an original contribution?                                             Yes
Are the conclusions justified on the evidence presented?                Yes
Is the work free of major errors in fact, logic or technique?                        Yes
Is the paper clearly and concisely written?                                    A number of minor grammatical improvements needed

Do you consider that the data provided on the care and use of animals (See Instructions to Contributors) is sufficient to establish that the animals used in the experiments were well looked after, that care was taken to avoid distress, and that there was no unethical use of ahimals? Yes

2 PRESENTATION (Mark "Yes" or "No").

Does the title clearly indicate the content of the paper?                  Yes
Does the abstract convey the essence of the article?                                 Yes
Are all the tables essential?                                                         Yes - very clear and well presented
Are the figures and drawings of good quality?                               Yes
Are the illustrations necessary for an understanding of the text?     They are helpful
Is the labelling adequate?                                                                       Yes

3. RECOMMENDATIONS(Mark one with an X)

Not suitable for publication in the OJVR X
Reassess after major changes
Accept for publication with minor changes
Accept for publication without changes

4. REPORT

The authors have produced a well written clinical case report. However, this is not a ‘scientific paper’ and is based upon their observations of a single animal with no possibility of a statistical analysis or conclusion that could benefit the wider scientific community. Whilst I enjoyed reading this paper, this reviewer questions whether this paper should more appropriately be sent to an applied clinical publication.

Editors note: The OJVR does publish single case reports as the one mentioned refer to

http://users.comcen.com.au/~journals/jvet198.htm

BACK TO MAIN