Reviewers provide expert evaluation of aquaculture research submissions. Reviews focus on trial validity, data transparency, and relevance to the field.

• Soundness of trial design and controls
• Appropriateness of validation and replication
• Transparency of data sources and parameters
• Clarity of results and interpretation
• Relevance to aquaculture science and applications

Reviewers submit structured feedback through ManuscriptZone. IJARD encourages constructive, detailed comments that help authors improve transparency and reproducibility.

Manuscripts and review discussions are confidential. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline reviews when necessary.

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.

Explain how editors can request additional reviews for interdisciplinary studies.

Provide guidance on assessing translational relevance without overstating conclusions.

Encourage confidential notes to editors for ethical or methodological concerns.

Remind reviewers and editors to note missing data or unclear methods during initial assessment.

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.