WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • DECEMBER 2015 49 (CONTINUED ON PAGE 50) science, etc.), while others are more ‘practice-oriented’ (aquaculture, aquaculture management, production sciences, aquatic nutrition, etc.). The goal is publication of new knowledge that strengthens and broadens practical options to maintain and manage aquatic organisms in culture environments. Hence typical manuscripts submitted to aquaculture journals should contain information that contributes to the growth, survival and welfare of farmed aquatic organisms, the profitability of aquaculture production and/or the sustainability of aquaculture practice. A letter of invitation to review an aquaculture manuscript sent from the editor-in-chief or the associate editor to a potential peer reviewer usually includes the title and abstract of the manuscript (and sometimes the name of the submitting author). When the journal uses an electronic manuscript management system, this letter of invitation is accompanied by three web links that allow the invited scientist to register a response to the invitation to perform the review by choosing between agree, decline and unavailable. The first step in a peer-reviewer’s contribution is evaluation of the manuscript’s title and abstract. Reading these allows the peer reviewer to check alignment of the subject of the paper with the peer reviewer’s field of expertise and experience. In the affirmative, the invited scientist might agree to review the manuscript; in the negative, the invitation to review is declined and the editor-inchief or associate editor will have to invite another potential peer reviewer. When the invited scientist does not have time to dedicate to this task, the potential peer reviewer selects unavailable, and is usually asked to suggest potential alternative peer reviewers for this task. Clarity of the manuscript title and editing and presentation of the abstract play a crucial role in helping a peer reviewer decide whether or not to agree to review a manuscript. Authors are encouraged to pay special attention to the title and abstract of their manuscript because these two sections of the manuscript are the first parts that are read by the editor-in-chief and potential peer reviewers (Yossa 2014). If the invited scientist agrees to proceed with the review, the reviewer is requested to create an account on the website of the manuscript management system, where access is given to a pdf of the complete manuscript package. This account will be used by the peer reviewer to submit the completed review with recommendation. To preserve anonymity, the peer reviewer usually does not make comments directly on manuscript files but rather in the review report. However, although it is not yet common practice, some journals allow the reviewer to add comments directly to the manuscript file, while making sure to preserve anonymity of the peer reviewer. The peer reviewer may discuss this possibility with the editors. The review report comprises two distinct parts: confidential comments to the editor and major and minor comments to the authors. Each part should start with a brief summary of the peer reviewer’s understanding of the research problem and the methodology used to achieve the research objective presented in the manuscript. Confidential comments to the editor allows the peer reviewer to provide editors with important information that they do not want to disclose to the authors; for instance, if the peer reviewer has previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal. Major comments to the author consist of general impressions and strengths and weakness of the manuscript, especially regarding quality of the science. Minor comments to the author constitute a point-by-point analysis of the manuscript, from the title to the reference list. To prepare comments to the authors, the peer reviewer thoroughly reads the manuscript, starting with the introduction through the conclusion, and ending with the title and abstract. Introduction. The peer reviewer evaluates if the subject is original, the research problem is relevant to aquaculture and the hypothesis and objectives are well formulated. Materials and methods. The peer reviewer examines the experimental design, treatments, parameters of interest, sampling, analytical and statistical methods (Yossa and Verdegem 2015), Aquaculture journals are ‘discipline-oriented’ or ‘practice-oriented.’ The goal is publication of new knowledge that strengthens and broadens practical options to maintain and manage aquatic organisms in culture environments. Manuscripts submitted to aquaculture journals should contain information that contributes to the growth, survival and welfare of farmed aquatic organisms, the profitability of aquaculture production and/or the sustainability of aquaculture practice.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=