Croatian Journal of Fisheries

Principles peer reviewers should adhere to:

• Review all articles objectively, without bias or favouritism based upon the origin of the article, gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation or age of the authors, or commercial considerations. All evaluations must strictly comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which can be viewed directly at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
• Review articles solely in subject areas in which they have expertise.
• Before consenting to review an article, ensure sufficient time and resource availability to complete a comprehensive assessment of the article in a timely manner.
• Decline to review articles that create a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, which can arise from the content of the article, its authors and/or its funders. When in doubt, peer reviewers should disclose the potential conflict of interest to the publisher and seek advice before proceeding with the review. following the COPE guidelines on undisclosed conflicts of interest available at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/undisclosed-conflict-interest-published-article
• Provide reviews that are constructive and impartial, devoid of any hostile, inflammatory, libellous, unfair or unnecessarily derogatory comments in accordance with the COPE ethical standards for reviewer conduct which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
• During and after the peer review process, maintain the confidentiality of unpublished articles and refrain from discussing them with others.
• Refrain from using research or information contained in unpublished articles for any purpose, including personal gain or the advantage or disadvantage of any other person or organisation.
• Promptly disclose to an article’s editor that the article has not properly cited its sources, or contains errors or material omissions, allowing the editorial team to take action in line with COPE core practices for handling allegations of misconduct, accessible at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/editorial-misconduct.

The duration of the review process largely depends on the availability and responsiveness of the assigned Associate Editor and reviewers. While the standard expected timeline for completing reviews is three weeks, this period may be extended due to the reviewers’ and editors’ professional commitments. If an assigned Field Editor or reviewer is unable to take on the task, a replacement will be appointed, which may further influence the overall timeline.

Once the reviews are submitted, the editorial decision-making process begins. The Editor promptly evaluates the feedback and makes a decision regarding the manuscript’s potential acceptance. Following this, the manuscript revision procedures are initiated, where authors are required to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version. Based on the quality of the revisions, the Editor makes the final decision regarding final acceptance or rejection, adhering to the systematic workflows detailed in the COPE Flowcharts for journal editors, which can be found at https://publicationethics.org/media/609/download?attachment

In cases where reviewers provide contradictory recommendations (e.g., one recommends acceptance while another recommends rejection), the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Field Editor will carefully assess both arguments. Depending on the scientific merit of the comments, the manuscript may be accepted conditionally with a request for major revisions, rejected, or sent to a third, additional reviewer to secure a tie-breaking evaluation. Following this, the manuscript revision procedures are initiated, where authors are required to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version. Based on the quality of the revisions, the Editor makes the final decision regarding final acceptance or rejection, ensuring full compliance with COPE Council guidelines on editorial decisions and accountability, accessible directly at: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/editorial-independence.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Dear Reviewer,

The Editorial Croatian Journal of Fisheries sincerely thanks you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer.

Your expertise, integrity, and time are essential to maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and international standing of the journal. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly communication, and your contribution directly supports the advancement of sustainable agriculture and natural resource management.

Peer Review Model

Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus operates a single-anonymized peer review process:

• Reviewers know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• The Editorial Office maintains confidentiality of all participants.

All manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Before Accepting the Review Invitation

Please accept the review only if:

• The manuscript fits within your expertise.
• You can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• You have no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal).

Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Recent collaboration with the authors
• Same institution affiliation
• Direct academic competition
• Financial interest in publication outcome
• Personal disputes

If any potential conflict exists, notify the handling editor immediately.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards.

You should alert the editor if you suspect:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity to published work
• Duplicate or simultaneous submission
• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Ethical concerns regarding animal or human research
• Inappropriate authorship practices
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Use of artificial intelligence tools inconsistent with the journal’s AI policy

CJF follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts under review must not be:

• Shared with third parties
• Used for personal research advantage
• Cited or discussed publicly

Confidentiality applies both during and after the review process.

The Purpose of Your Review

A high-quality review should be:

• Objective
• Evidence-based
• Constructive
• Respectful
• Scientifically rigorous

Your role is not to rewrite the manuscript to match your stylistic preferences but to evaluate:

• Scientific validity
• Originality
• Relevance
• Methodological rigor
• Contribution to sustainable agricultural science

Evaluation Criteria

When preparing your report, please consider the following:

Scope and Relevance

Does the manuscript align with the aims and scope of Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus?

Does it contribute to sustainable agriculture, agroecosystems, or natural resource management?

Is it relevant to an international readership?

Originality and Contribution

Does the study provide novel findings or meaningful synthesis?

Does it significantly advance knowledge in the field?

Is it more than a local case study without broader implications?

Scientific Rigor

Are research objectives clearly defined?

Is the methodology appropriate and sufficiently described?

Are statistical analyses valid and reproducible?

Are data adequately presented and interpreted?

Structure and Clarity

Is the manuscript logically organized?

Is the abstract accurate and informative?

Are conclusions supported by results?

Is the language sufficiently clear for scientific communication?

(Language polishing is not the reviewer’s primary responsibility, but major clarity issues should be noted.)

Literature and Context

Is the literature review current and balanced?

Are relevant studies cited appropriately?

Are claims supported by references?

Ethical and Sustainability Considerations

Are ethical approvals clearly stated (if applicable)?

Does the research address environmental sustainability responsibly?

Are sustainability claims scientifically justified?

Structure of the Review Report

1. Comments to the Authors

Please provide:

• A brief overall assessment.
• Major comments (methodology, originality, interpretation).
• Minor comments (clarity, formatting, small corrections).
• If recommending rejection, clearly explain the scientific reasons.
• Tone should remain professional and respectful at all times.

Avoid:

• Personal criticism
• Dismissive language
• Unjustified negative remarks
• Requests to cite your own work unless scientifically necessary

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use this section for:

• Ethical concerns
• Publication priority evaluation
• Concerns about originality
• Overall recommendation

Ensure your recommendation aligns with your comments to authors.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor may decide:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The final decision rests with the Editor, who evaluates all reviewer input.

Grounds for Rejection (Common Issues)

Manuscripts may be rejected due to:

• Lack of originality
• Methodological flaws
• Insufficient dana
• Overly local relevance without broader significance
• Unsupported conclusions
• Ethical concerns
• Outdated or inappropriate analytical methods

Review Timelines

Timely reviews are essential.

If you anticipate delays, please inform the Editorial Office promptly so arrangements can be made.

Recognition of Reviewer Contribution

CJF recognizes the critical role of reviewers in sustaining scientific excellence. The Editorial Board deeply appreciates your voluntary service to the scholarly community.

Closing Note

By participating in peer review for CJF, you contribute directly to strengthening research quality, sustainability science, and responsible agricultural innovation worldwide.

We sincerely thank you for your expertise and commitment.