Review process
For 10 years, until April 2026, the RCVS Knowledge library team constantly watched a list of over 100 veterinary journals for newly-published evidence. The publications tracked included all of the major peer-reviewed journals, as well as specialist sources and other outlets. Articles and papers highlighted in our journal watch were chosen based on their individual qualities; not on the reputation of the publications publishing them.
Every two months, the library team compiled a long list of possible articles and papers for inclusion in the next edition. They then narrowed this down to a shortlist of up to 15 by assessing all articles for overall quality and relevance to the general practitioner.
The shortlist was sent to the clinical review team, who scored each article on the following criteria:
Relevance
- How relevant is it to the general practitioner?
- Will it have an impact in practice?
Interest
- Would the subject of the paper appeal to the general practitioner?
- Is it interesting?
Quality
- Is the paper of a good quality?
- Are the conclusions/recommendations clinically sound?
The scores from the clinical review team were collated and the top-scoring articles were selected for inclusion in the next edition. A maximum of six articles were highlighted. In the event of a tie, the articles with the highest scores for impact in practice and soundness of conclusions were selected.
With the best articles agreed upon, they were summarised by the library and clinical review team – all reviewers had the opportunity to comment on or make amendments to each proposed summary and take-home message until a general agreement was reached.
Summaries were then sent to subscribers by email and published on our website.
Editorial independence
Our journal watch was completely editorially independent and prides itself on highlighting content of the highest available quality.
The RCVS Knowledge library and information service produced journal watch and employed an independent clinical review team to ensure all content is accurate, balanced and relevant to veterinary practitioners.
Members of the clinical review team were chosen based on their professional experience and education. Reviewers were not accepted or rejected in relation to their personal opinions on any aspect of veterinary medicine.
Conflicts of interest
Our journal watch strived to uphold best practice in relation to any potential conflict of interest with regard to inclusion of articles.
The library team did not consider any articles that had been brought to its attention by the authors or the journal in which they were published.
Members of the clinical review team were asked to declare any conflict of interest relating to articles on the shortlist to ensure there was no potential for bias. A conflict of interest was any relationship that may have affected a reviewer’s scientific judgement, including but not restricted to a financial relationship, academic competition personal relationships and/or intellectual passion.
Funding
Journal watch is owned and published by RCVS Knowledge, the charity partner of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). The revenue source was through organisational support from the RCVS.
Disclaimer
Journal watch summaries – and content therein – were intended only for use as a tool to support making informed decisions and does not override the responsibility of the practitioner to use their clinical expertise and judgement.