Guidelines for Reviewers 

Reviewing a manuscript is a privilege and a time-consuming responsibility.

It is important that the manuscripts are critically evaluated for compliance with the following criteria: novelty, importance to the specific field and strong evidence for the conclusions drawn.

The most useful referee reports are those that set out clear, substantiated arguments and may include a recommendation of a course of action directed to the authors.

Receiving the manuscript. Manuscript reviewed for the Croatian Journal of Fisheries: Ribarstvo (Croat J Fish) should not be discussed with the authors both during and after the reviewing process. Please protect the manuscript provided for review from any form of exploitation. Upon receiving a manuscript to review, please do the following: double-check the manuscript's Title page and the Acknowledgements section to determine whether you have a conflict of interest (with the authors, their institution or sources of funding) and whether you can evaluate the article impartially, skim the relevant parts of the manuscript and verify that it fits within the scope of the Journal, and contact the editor for instructions if you either have a conflict of interest or need more time so that she can extend your deadline or cancel the review request if necessary.

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed by the Associate Editor to determine if they meet our editorial criteria. Manuscripts accepted for review are sent to two referees selected by the Associate Editor.

The reviewer must be fair, unbiased and confidential. The author’s writing style should not be changed if the meaning is clear. When corrections are necessary, revision should be offered as a suggestion. Prompt attention to the manuscript will be appreciated by the authors and the editor. The manuscript must conform to the requirements outlined in the Instructions for Authors.

Tips for the reviewers. Since the review process in Croat J Fish is anonymous, authors are never informed of the reviewer’s identity. The review should be clear, detailed, timely (approx. 30 days) and should reflect an unbiased opinion of the scientific quality of the article. Reviewers are asked to maintain an impartial attitude in evaluating manuscripts.

General evaluation of the manuscript

• Type of the paper (original scientific paper, preliminary communication, short communication, review article, professional paper, etc.)
• Is the topic of the article relevant to the Journal’s scope (YES, NO)
• Are the keywords appropriately chosen? (YES, NO)
• Is the International System of Units (SI) used properly?
• Is the Literature Cited relevant and are references written according to the guidelines? (YES, NO)

Manuscript quality assessment

• Clarity and conciseness of the author’s writing style (Poor, Good, Excellent, Not applicable)
• Contribution to new and/or useful knowledge (Poor, Good, Excellent, Not applicable)
• Use of appropriate experimental design (Poor, Good, Excellent, Not applicable)
• Informativeness, tidiness and correctness of tables and figures presented (Poor, Good, Excellent, Not applicable)
• Use of appropriate data analysis techniques (Poor, Good, Excellent, Not applicable)

Overall assessment

• Based on the recommendations of the referees, the Associate Editor decides whether to accept the paper for publication:

a) The manuscript is accepted in its original form;

b) The manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revision (comments);

c) The manuscript may be reconsidered after major revision and re-evaluation (comments);

d) The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication (comments; lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or poor scientific writing, major technical and/or interpretational problems, etc.).

Based on the recommendations of the referees, the Associate Editor decides to: accept the manuscript with or without minor revision, invite the authors to revise the manuscript before a final decision is made, or reject the manuscript due to lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems. Informs the Editor-in-Chief about his/her decision. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief has the right to discuss the final decision with AE and change it for a relevant reason.

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process and reviewers are expected to treat the review process as strictly confidential.