Readership surveys over the last 10 or more years have shown that peer reviewed articles, that is, review papers, scientific articles, brief communication and, occasionally, special reports, are the most widely read material in The Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ). This is as it should be if the CVJ is to be successful in fulfilling its mission of informing readers of progress in clinical veterinary medicine, veterinary research, and other selected fields of endeavor (1).

The peer review process as implemented in peer reviewed journals has been subjected to some criticism over the years. Authors complain about such things as delays in publishing, reviewer competence, and bias on the part of the reviewer or editor. Consequently, some investigators have taken advantage of electronic forms of communication to publish their findings without any, or with only superficial, prior scrutiny, resulting, in some cases, in unfortunate consequences.

The review process is not perfect, but I believe that most authors who have had their manuscripts peer reviewed would agree that the manuscripts, and thus eventually the published papers, have been improved as a result of reviewer and editorial input.

Implementation of the review process for the CVJ involves many people, the majority of whom give of their time and expertise voluntarily; namely, the members of the editorial board, the reviewers, and the editorial staff.

The critical part of any peer review process is in selecting the correct reviewer for a particular manuscript. For papers submitted for consideration by this catholic journal, the selections are made, for the most part, by the associate or an assistant editor, or both, because these editors are knowledgeable about the personnel in their area of jurisdiction. On occasion, the selection is made by the editor. Initially, at least 2 and sometimes 3 reviewers are selected for each manuscript; an additional reviewer may be selected, if there is strong disagreement between reviewers or if an author disagrees strongly with a reviewer's comments.

The careful review of a manuscript and preparation of a report involves the commitment of considerable time and effort, which should be recognized as a valuable scholarly contribution, not only to authors but to the veterinary literature and, thus, to the entire profession.

Delays in the review process are almost inevitable. By and large, reviewers are busy people with ongoing commitments and, generally, the disposition of a manuscript is not considered until the reports from both, or all, reviewers are on hand. In recent years, delays in receiving the reviewers' reports have increased, in some cases to the point where it is embarrassing for the editorial staff in communicating with the author.

The conscientious and well-organized reviewer will always find the time to do what has to be done. The less conscientious or, perhaps, less organized reviewer will tend to procrastinate and prioritize commitments of a personal or job designated nature, possibly because manuscript review is not given sufficient recognition as an important scholarly activity and service to the veterinary community by those evaluating an individual's academic accomplishments.

Being asked to review a manuscript is an honor, regardless of the standing of that journal in the hierarchy of scientific or professional journals. It is also peer recognition of one's expertise in a particular field and ability to make an objective and constructive evaluation of a manuscript. “Procrastination is the thief of time,” so “... never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.”

​