At Veterinary Evidence we value the contributions of our authors and recognise the importance of creating a supportive and inclusive environment for authors. We understand that in some situations publishing can be a daunting experience, and we are committed to supporting our authors' wellbeing and mental health.
As a contributor to the evidence base, you should expect your published work to be read, evaluated, and considered by others. While peer review comments can be robust, they are usually approached with an understanding by the reviewer of the impact their comments may have. Readers, though, may question elements of your paper, point out inconsistencies, or suspect errors, in many different ways.
Veterinary Evidence has policies and processes for readers who would like to raise concerns about a published paper. It may be that a reader has misinterpreted your findings, or has identified a legitimate need to correct your paper, or would like to discuss your findings in a Letter to the Editor. But regardless of whether the reader’s criticism is unfounded or founded, it can create significant anxiety for an author and can be challenging to deal with.
It’s good to talk
If you find your mental health or wellbeing is affected at any stage of the publication process or by any criticisms of your published work, then please inform the journal editorial office. We can offer guidance, support, and practical steps, and if necesssary will assess whether further investigation is needed.
It may help to talk to your peers, a colleague, or someone within your academic institution (if you are affiliated with one). Others may have been through something similar and can offer support and advice, and instituions often have support resources. There are other organisations and resources that can offer support you if you are feeling overwhelmed: Mind Matters (RCVS), Vetlife, Mind, and No Panic.
How Veterinary Evidence supports authors
Author guidelines: Our Author Hub provides clear guidelines that outline the journal's expectations regarding formatting, content, and research ethics. By setting clear expectations from the outset, we aim to minimise confusion and potential anxiety related to the publication process.
Reporting concerns: If authors experience any form of harassment or misconduct during the publication process, we take such matters seriously. We have a clear reporting mechanism in place that allows authors to confidentially report any concerns they may have. The journal's editorial office will investigate and take appropriate action to address the situation. See Appeals and complaints policy.
Anonymous peer review process: To provide a fair and unbiased evaluation of submissions, we employ a double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Anonymity helps ensure that the evaluation is based solely on the quality of the research, reducing the potential for personal biases to affect the outcome.
Constructive feedback and editorial support: We encourage reviewers to provide constructive feedback to authors, focusing on improving the research and manuscript quality. The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that reviewers' comments are respectful and relevant. If any concerns arise regarding the tone or content of the feedback, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office for assistance and clarification.
Flexibility in deadlines: Veterinary Evidence understands the demands of daily life. If you are unable to meet a deadline, please contact us.
Confidentiality: We take confidentiality seriously and maintain the privacy of authors throughout the publication process. Reviewers are also expected to respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review. Any breach of confidentiality is considered a violation of our policies and appropriate action will be taken.
Post-publication support: Once a paper is published, we continue to support authors in dealing with any anxieties or criticisms that may arise.