Peer Review Guidelines

Conflicts of Interest

JABE strives to avoid assigning reviewers who may have conflicts of interest with the authors or the research under consideration. However, reviewers share responsibility for identifying and declaring any potential conflicts.

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

• Employment at the same institution as any of the authors
• Recent or ongoing collaborations
• Personal relationships
• Financial or commercial interests related to the research

If a reviewer identifies a conflict that could influence their objectivity, they should decline the invitation to review. If a reviewer believes that a potential conflict does not compromise their ability to provide an impartial assessment, they must disclose the situation to the Editorial Office. The journal will evaluate the circumstances and determine whether reassignment is necessary.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with individuals outside the review process without prior permission from the Editorial Office.

Unpublished data, ideas, or findings presented in the manuscript must not be used for personal research, competitive advantage, or any other purpose. If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague for expert advice, prior approval from the Editorial Office is required.

All individuals who contribute to the review process will be appropriately recorded in the journal’s internal records and acknowledged for their contributions.

Anonymity

JABE follows a single-blind peer review model. Under this system, reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but reviewer identities remain confidential.

The Editorial Office does not disclose reviewer identities to authors or other reviewers. Reviewers are requested not to include identifying information such as name, affiliation, or contact details within their review reports.

All review reports must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system and not sent directly to authors. If a reviewer wishes to reveal their identity to the authors, this must be discussed with the Editorial Office in advance, and any disclosure will be managed officially by the journal.

Unbiased and Objective Evaluation

Reviewers must provide fair, objective, and constructive evaluations. Assessments should focus exclusively on scientific merit and scholarly contribution, regardless of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political beliefs, or other personal characteristics.

Personal criticism is inappropriate. Feedback should be respectful, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the manuscript’s scientific quality and clarity.

Reporting Misconduct

Reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding academic integrity. If a reviewer identifies potential research or publication misconduct—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, unethical experimentation, or inappropriate authorship—they must immediately notify the Editorial Office.

All allegations will be handled confidentially and in accordance with international publication ethics standards.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to address the following aspects when evaluating a manuscript:

Novelty

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents new findings, innovative methods, or original interpretations. The work should meaningfully advance knowledge in aquatic biology, ecology, marine science, freshwater systems, fisheries science, or related disciplines.

Significance

The manuscript should address a timely and relevant topic. Reviewers should consider whether the study makes a substantial contribution to the field and whether it will be of interest to researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Scientific Soundness

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

• The study design is appropriate and rigorous
• Methods are clearly described and reproducible
• Data analyses are technically sound
• Results support the conclusions
• Ethical standards have been met

Scientific validity and methodological transparency are essential for publication.

Clarity and Organization

The manuscript should be clearly structured, logically organized, and professionally written. Reviewers should assess whether:

• The objectives are clearly stated
• The figures and tables are accurate and informative
• The discussion appropriately interprets results
• The conclusion summarizes the main findings effectively

Constructive suggestions for improving organization and clarity are highly encouraged.

Language Quality

Reviewers should comment on whether the English language is clear and understandable. Minor language corrections may be suggested; however, reviewers are not expected to provide full language editing.

Structure of the Review Report

A complete review report should contain two primary components:

First, detailed comments addressing the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. These comments should evaluate novelty, significance, scientific rigor, clarity, and language quality. Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific suggestions for improvement rather than general criticisms.

Second, an overall recommendation for editorial consideration. The available recommendations include:

Acceptance – The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

Minor Revision – The manuscript requires minor improvements before it can be accepted.

Major Revision – The manuscript requires substantial revisions, such as additional analysis, clarification of methodology, restructuring, or expansion of the literature review.

Rejection – The manuscript contains serious scientific flaws, lacks originality, or does not meet the journal’s standards.

If reviewers wish to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript, they should clearly indicate this preference in their report.

Recognition for Reviewers

JABE deeply values the time and expertise contributed by reviewers and actively seeks to recognize their efforts.

The journal publishes an annual acknowledgement of reviewers to recognize their contributions to maintaining high scientific standards. Reviewers receive a formal Reviewer Recognition Certificate upon completion of their review.

Reviewers are encouraged to register with Publons to record their peer review contributions. The Editorial Office will verify completed reviews upon request. The journal also recommends that reviewers obtain an ORCID iD and link it to their Publons account, allowing automatic export of verified review activity.

Additional Information

For further details about the peer review and editorial workflow, reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal’s:

• Peer Review Policy
• Editorial Process
• Guest Editor Guidelines

For any questions regarding the review process, please contact:

editor@researchfloor.org