Editors ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of submissions in aquaculture science. They guide peer review, evaluate reviewer feedback, and provide clear decisions to authors.

• Assess scope fit and methodological rigor
• Select reviewers with subject expertise
• Provide constructive decision letters
• Monitor ethics and conflict of interest compliance

Editors evaluate trial validity, data transparency, and clarity of conclusions. Manuscripts should demonstrate validation appropriate to the study design.

Editors must treat manuscripts as confidential and disclose any conflicts of interest. Potential conflicts are managed in coordination with the editorial office.

Editors are expected to manage reviews efficiently and communicate with authors in a timely manner. The editorial office provides support for reviewer reminders and logistics.

Clearly report water quality metrics and monitoring frequency for transparency.

Provide validation evidence or benchmark comparisons to show trial reliability.

Describe data sources and preprocessing steps so other researchers can reproduce results.

Clarify how health or survival outcomes were measured and interpreted.

Use consistent terminology and define acronyms at first use.

If code or data sharing is restricted, describe access limitations and provide detailed methods.

Summarize how results support sustainable aquaculture practices without overstating conclusions.

Report the primary outcome measures used to evaluate performance or health.

Note any limitations related to sample size or trial duration.

Provide clarity on reviewer or editor expectations to support consistent decision making.

Highlight how ethical compliance and conflict disclosures are verified during review.

Recommend specific statistical checks or validation steps for performance outcomes.

Describe how reviewers should document major versus minor concerns.

Encourage concise summaries of key strengths and limitations for author guidance.

State the importance of data availability statements in reviewer assessments.

Note best practices for evaluating replicates, controls, and sample sizes.

Remind reviewers to flag unclear husbandry or water quality reporting.

Suggest timelines for responding to review invitations and completing reviews.

IJARD is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in aquaculture research. We emphasize reproducible methods, complete data statements, and ethical compliance across all article types.

The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].

We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in aquaculture and fisheries research.