How a scientific decision is made, here.
This page describes the end-to-end framework that governs the production, review, updating and publication of scientific content on Canine ReproVet Knowledge™.
From scientific direction to the individual SKO.
Scientific direction
The Founder & Scientific Director defines the mission, domain boundaries and scientific roadmap of the platform.
Editorial board
Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors are responsible for editorial decisions in each vertical area of the catalogue.
Peer review
Independent External Reviewers assess every knowledge object prior to publication.
SKO structure
Every synthesis is an atomic, cited, versioned object. No synthesis without a source, no source without an evidence level.
Continuous updating
Every SKO has a review date and update cadence. New evidence produces new versions; historical versions remain traceable.
The rules that do not change, even under pressure.
Total transparency
Every editorial choice, every rejection, every change of stance is tracked and visible.
No synthesis without a source
A claim without a source cannot become published content. Full stop.
Public legitimate dissent
When the literature diverges, we declare the disagreement instead of hiding it behind an affirmative tone.
Governance / desk separation
Platform governance is isolated from the scientific desk. Those producing content cannot modify the rules.
Professional registration
Senior editorial roles are reserved to veterinarians registered with a recognised professional order.
Periodic rotation
Review roles rotate over time to prevent the settling of dogma.
Every claim carries its own weight.
High evidence
Meta-analyses, well-conducted RCTs, guidelines from recognised societies.
Moderate evidence
Consistent observational studies, convergence across independent sources.
Low evidence
Limited case series or active expert disagreement — explicitly flagged.