Reviewer Policies
1. Reviewers’ Guidelines
The Advances in Aquaculture and Fisheries Management relies on the expertise of our reviewers to ensure the high quality, accuracy, and integrity of the content we publish. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the technical merit, originality, clarity, and significance of submissions. Below are the guidelines to help reviewers assess manuscripts in a consistent and constructive manner:
1.1 Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review ensures that published research in the Advances in Aquaculture and Fisheries Management journal:
- Demonstrates scientific and technical rigor.
- Advances knowledge in aquaculture and fisheries management fields.
- Provides clear and meaningful conclusions based on well-designed research.
1.2 Key Aspects for Reviewers to Evaluate
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Originality: Ensure that the research is original, not published elsewhere, and contributes something new to the field of aquaculture and fisheries management.
- Technical Accuracy: Assess whether the methodologies, experiments, and analysis are sound and accurate. Verify that the conclusions are supported by the data.
- Clarity of Writing: Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is well-written and that the arguments are clear, logical, and accessible to the intended audience.
- Relevance and Significance: Consider whether the research is relevant to the field of aquaculture and fisheries management and if it has the potential to make a significant impact.
- Presentation of Data: Verify that tables, figures, and equations are well-presented and that all necessary data is included.
- References: Ensure the manuscript appropriately cites relevant prior research and that all claims are properly supported by references to prior work.
- Ethical Considerations: Confirm that the research adheres to ethical standards, such as obtaining appropriate permissions, adhering to guidelines for animal or human subject research, and avoiding any unethical conduct like plagiarism or data fabrication.
1.3 Confidentiality
All manuscripts and related communications must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should:
- Not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript contents with anyone outside of the peer review process.
- Not use information obtained through the review process for personal advantage.
1.4 Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback to the authors. The review should help improve the manuscript by:
- Suggesting clarifications, improvements, or additional references that could strengthen the paper.
- Avoiding harsh or dismissive language; aim for helpful and professional suggestions.
- Providing a summary of the strengths of the manuscript alongside any weaknesses.
1.5 Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the time frame requested (usually 2–4 weeks). If more time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial office and request an extension.
1.6 Decision Making
Reviewers will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations:
- Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or very minor revisions.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes (e.g., clarification of concepts, minor edits).
- Major Revisions: Substantial changes are required (e.g., additional experiments, reanalysis of data).
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the required standards of quality, relevance, or originality.
Reviewers should explain their reasoning clearly in the review comments, providing evidence to support their recommendations.
2. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)
The Advances in Aquaculture and Fisheries Management follows rigorous standards for transparency and impartiality in the peer review process. It is crucial for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment. Below are the expectations for conflict of interest and financial disclosures specific to reviewers:
2.1 Definition of Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest exists when a reviewer has any relationship, financial or personal, that could be seen to influence or bias their evaluation of a manuscript. These conflicts could include but are not limited to:
- Personal Relationships: Close personal relationships (e.g., family, friends, colleagues, or former students) with the authors of the manuscript.
- Professional Relationships: Current or recent collaborations, co-authorship, or joint research with the authors of the manuscript.
- Financial Interests: Involvement with commercial entities, such as financial or proprietary interests in companies or products discussed in the manuscript.
- Competing Research: Manuscripts that are too similar to the reviewer’s own unpublished work or ongoing research.
- Academic Competition: Reviewers who are in direct competition with the authors of the manuscript, whether for funding, awards, or academic recognition.
2.2 Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office when they are invited to review a manuscript. If a conflict of interest arises during the review process, the reviewer must immediately notify the editor and, if necessary, recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.
- Examples of Disclosures: If a reviewer has published work that is closely related to the submitted manuscript, or if the reviewer has a financial stake in a company mentioned in the article, this must be disclosed.
- No Conflict of Interest: If the reviewer does not have any conflicts of interest, they should affirm this when submitting their review.
2.3 Financial Disclosures
Reviewers must disclose any financial relationships or interests that could potentially influence their assessment of a manuscript. This includes but is not limited to:
- Industry Funding: If the reviewer or their institution has received funding from an organization that could benefit from the research being reviewed.
- Consulting or Advisory Roles: If the reviewer is employed by or provides consulting services to a company or organization involved with the research topic.
- Stock or Equity Ownership: If the reviewer has financial ownership in a company that is directly linked to the manuscript’s content.
2.4 Managing Conflicts of Interest
If a conflict of interest is disclosed, the editorial team will assess whether the reviewer should continue with the review or if another reviewer should be selected. In cases where the conflict cannot be managed transparently (for example, if the reviewer has a direct financial interest in the results of the study), the manuscript may be reassigned to a different reviewer.
2.5 Recusal
If at any point during the review process a reviewer feels they cannot provide an objective or impartial review due to a conflict of interest, they should recuse themselves from the process. This includes instances where:
- The reviewer has a direct personal or professional connection to the authors.
- The reviewer has competing research that may benefit or be harmed by the findings of the manuscript.
