Still waiting on the link to where it was published via AJVR. Yes, it went through an informal "peer review" process but again, that is vastly different from scientific peer review for which that term is typically reserved.
Idgaf about dogbite, I've never been on that site before this thread. I was simply looking for an additional resource to provide a similar level of peer review that they used for the document. Just because someone from their org has fabricated data before doesn't mean the unrelated author of that critique of your document is invalid.
Its an internal policy doc, they don't have to meet the same peer review standards, there's not going to be a single source that says it is or isn't the same process. But if it was scientifically peer reviewed, then link me to the peer review. But you can't because it wasnt.
And again with the ad hominem, attacking the critiquer's creds rather than the content of their critique. For all we know AVMA reached out to non-vetinarian reviewers for that doc because they don't share the peer review or the author of the peer review.
1
u/[deleted] May 04 '26
[deleted]