return to: Dr V. H Guerrini.
Online Journal of Veterinary Research, firstname.lastname@example.org
(a) Writing a report on the
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"
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?Y
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 Research Animal Care, University Shiraz)
2 PRESENTATION (Mark "Yes" or "No").
Does the title clearly indicate the content of the paper? NA (see suggestions)
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? NA
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 a well written, referenced, analysed report concerning the potential effects of acepromazine-xylazine on intraocular pressure in dogs (especially in relation to glaucoma). One interesting finding (unless already known) was that there was a significant difference between the left and right eye normally. The authors should establish and discuss whether this is a normal event and whether this could have affected the results. Abstract: has been partially modified to reflect salient finding on IOP. Introduction: Well written and referenced and relevant (ie: IOP pressure and glaucoma in dogs). Methods: A large cohort was used (24 dogs) providing highy significant statistical data. Methods:Tonometer and statistical analysis appropriate but authors need to make clear how many dogs were given treatments. I notice that n=12 for each group and 24 dogs were used. The authors need to clearly state in text that same dogs were used within treatments (as I undertand) . Results In table 1. Authors are recommended to put number of animals per treatment. Discussion salient and well written. The findings support the conclusions. Recommend publication with those minor changes