50 DECEMBER 2015 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG duration of the experiment and materials used to determine the relevance of these to achieve the research objectives. Results. The peer reviewer checks if all parameters of interest for the study are well-presented and properly interpreted in the text, tables and figures are clear and stand alone so that no additional text is required to understand them. Discussion. The peer reviewer assesses if 1) results of the study are discussed to confirm or refute the research hypothesis, 2) results are compared to those of similar or related studies, 3) an explanation based on scientific evidence and concepts is made to support relevant results and discrepancies, 4) potential weaknesses of the study are presented and discussed, 5) economic, environmental and/or social benefits of the findings in relation to aquaculture are discussed and 6) pertinent questions for future research are presented for the advancement of science. Conclusion. The peer reviewer checks if authors relate findings to the research hypothesis and present the main conclusion (takehome message) and directions for future research. Title and Abstract. Upon completion of the reading of the main text, the peer reviewer examines if the manuscript title adequately reflects the study and the findings. The abstract is scrutinized to check if it contains study objectives, the aquatic species of interest, treatments and experimental design, duration of the study, main results and the take-home message. The abstract length should align with the word limit set by the journal. Overall, as the review progresses, the peer reviewer evaluates presentation of ideas in a logical and structured order from abstract to conclusion. The peer reviewer also examines if there is a perfect match between references cited in the text and those in the reference list. Although it is not the peer reviewer’s responsibility to check spelling and grammar in a manuscript, they can still make suggestions to authors to upgrade the quality of English language expression. Very poor quality of the language in a manuscript can be a sufficient reason to recommend rejection (Yossa 2014). On the basis of the main criteria above and other criteria specific to the aquaculture research sub-discipline, the peer reviewer prepares a report and the decision and score on the manuscript. This information is submitted to the journal, usually within four weeks of a peer reviewer agreeing to review a manuscript. The peer reviewer can request an extension of the review period to the editors. While submitting a report, the reviewer also indicates their willingness to review a revised manuscript if the editor-in-chief recommends further revision. If a peer reviewer requests further revision, it is appropriate to indicate willingness to review the revised manuscript to assure that the peer reviewer’s comments were thoroughly considered in the revision. Qualities Sought in a Peer Reviewer Peer reviewers benevolently provide an essential contribution to science in general and the inviting journal in particular (Preuss 2014). In an ideal world, each scientist should serve reciprocally as author and peer reviewer. To effectively perform peer review, a reviewer should satisfy some, if not all, of the following standards: • Be familiar with the subject of the manuscript. • Be available. If a peer reviewer does not have 3-6 hours to dedicate to review an article within 3-4 weeks of agreeing to the review, the invitation to review should be declined to avoid the inconvenience of delaying the review process. • Work with integrity. In case of real or potential conflicts of interest, the peer reviewer should inform the editors. The peer reviewer should be respectful to the author and maintain confidentiality. • Work with objectivity. The peer reviewer should make comments on the basis of scientific evidence and principles and not on the basis of personal feeling, apprehension and opinion. • Be accountable for the review. If the peer reviewer is helped in the review by a student, postdoc or colleague, the invited reviewer should read and approve comments prior to submitting the review report on the manuscript. • Be willing to review a revised version of the manuscript, irrespective of the score submitted. Conclusion This paper provided information on how peer review of original scientific manuscripts is operated, with emphasis on aquaculture science. This information is intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of less-experienced or younger scientists in performing manuscript reviews, which are essential for the advancement of aquaculture science. Acknowledgment This work has been funded by AquExperts International Inc. The author is grateful to Dr. Marc Verdegem (Editor of Aquaculture Research) for his comments on the initial version of this article. Notes Rodrigue Yossa, Ph.D., AquExperts International Inc., 5250 rue Lemaire, Quebec City, Quebec, G2E2G2, Canada. Tel: 1 581-777-7985; Emails: rodyossa@yahoo.fr, rodrigue.yossa@ aquexperts.com References Babor, T.F., K. Stenius, S. Savva and J. O’Reilly. 2008. Publishing Addiction Science: a Guide for the Perplexed, 2nd ed. MultiScience Publishing Company, Essex, UK. Hames, I. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Preuss, H. 2014. Special thanks to the guest reviewers of 2013! European Sport Management Quarterly 14:451-453. Yossa, R. 2014. Writing a scientific manuscript from original aquaculture research. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 26:293-309. Yossa, R. and M. Verdegem. 2015. Misuse of multiple comparison tests and underuse of contrast procedures in aquaculture publications. Aquaculture 437:344-350. Peer reviewers benevolently provide an essential contribution to science in general and the inviting journal in particular. In an ideal world, each scientist should serve reciprocally as author and peer reviewer.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=