Reviewers are requested:
- To be brief and succinct in their feedback
- To make suggestions that improve English and comprehension
- To check the following:
- Abstracts are approximately 3000 keystrokes or fewer in length (the Local Congress Organising Committee will check exact numbers).
- They contain the aim of the work, methods, results and conclusions.
- That data are given (unless the paper is a review or totally theoretical) together with method of data analysis and information on test statistics.
- That the conclusions are consistent with the results.
- Any potential ethical issues. The ISAE Ethics Committee has constructed a brief checklist of some relevant welfare or ethical issues. If any of these have occurred as part of the experimental design of the study being reviewed then the justification should be apparent. If it is not, the reviewer may wish to consult with the Ethics Committee or recommend that the Ethics Committee reviews the paper. Further information is available in the ISAE Ethical Guidelines. Reviewers should indicate on a scale (from none to major) their overall ethical concern about the study reported. Abstracts of major concern will automatically be forwarded to the Ethics Committee, whilst a decision on those of lesser concern will be at the discretion of the Local Congress Organising Committee. Referees should indicate overall if they feel the abstract should be seen by the Ethics Committee, even if the abstract is of low ethical concern.
To assist with making a decision, reviewers should consider the following:
As part of the experimental design, did the study impose any of the following procedures or conditions?
- Housing or husbandry inappropriate for the psychological and physiological needs of the species being studied
- Staged aggression, competition, or social defeat
- Protracted food or water deprivation, or diet manipulations likely to have an adverse effect on the animals
- Mutilations (this can include some methods of permanent marking, e.g. toe or tail clipping)
- Killing of animals as part of the experiment (including giving live animals as food)
- Surplus animals raised/acquired for the experiment
- Inappropriate social conditions, e.g. protracted isolation of gregarious or social sentient animals, unduly early weaning, or group-housing of normally solitary animals
- Prolonged restraint
- Collecting biological samples directly from the animal, such as tissue, blood, urine, faeces, semen, and saliva
- Induced infection, disease or parasitism
- Inappropriate release of wild-caught animals
- Adverse implications for conservation or the ecosystem
Reviewers are requested to recommend:
- whether the abstract should be accepted, rejected or whether further information is required (e.g. from the author or the Ethics Committee) before a decision can be made. If the decision is made to reject the abstract, reasons should be given.
- the form of presentation most suited for the abstract (e.g. plenary paper, short oral or poster presentation).
To facilitate the review process, the checklist above should be presented for authors at abstract submission. Further, the following text, including options to provide additional information, should be provided:
If your study involved any of the procedures mentioned above, please provide an ethical justification for this study. In particular, please consider:
- The justification for studying this topic/subject area
- The choice of research protocol
Also, if not already stated in the abstract, please give details of the research protocol, e.g.:
- The frequency and duration of potentially harmful procedures
- The intensity and duration of any adverse effects experienced by the animals
- The monitoring and procedures in place for alleviation of any suffering