Peer reviewers play a critical role in the success of the Journal of Fish Pathology and their thoughtful efforts are greatly appreciated by editors and by authors. JFP editors rely on reviewers to judge the quality and scientific value of a manuscript, and authors rely on reviewer insights to improve their publications (and catch some mistakes). Just as manuscripts vary widely in their quality, however, so do reviews; some are extremely helpful, and others are much less so.
This guide is intended to provide reviewers with a succinct overview of the JFP review process, and to help clarify the most important aspects of a review.
JFP should invite three reviewers, who are to be returned within three weeks. Based in part on reviewer comments and judgments of significance, the Editor makes a final decision on the manuscript.
■ Accepted (publishable as is) manuscripts generally require no further modification except minor copy editing. ■ Minor revision (publishable with minor revision) indicates that reviewers’ (and editor’s) suggestions must be incorporated prior to acceptance (which is not guaranteed); such changes normally must be submitted within 90 days. ■ Major revision (publishable with major revision) indicates that the manuscript may eventually be publishable in JFP and is of sufficient importance that it should be, but that substantial changes including additional research or analysis (and usually another round of reviews) are necessary. ■ Rejection (Unacceptable) means that the editors have decided that JFP should not publish the manuscript even if extensively revised.