Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process
Ensuring Quality, Integrity, and Scholarly Rigor

The Journal of Fisheries and Marine Resource Management (MARFIG) applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of every manuscript considered for publication. Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in fisheries, marine resource management, and related fields.

Review Process Overview
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for peer review. Manuscripts that meet the journal's focus, scope, and basic academic requirements proceed to external review. The final publication decision is made by the editorial team based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall quality of the manuscript.
01
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. The manuscript must comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and publication requirements.
02
Initial Editorial Screening
The editorial team conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, basic academic quality, originality, completeness, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
03
Plagiarism and Similarity Screening
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may undergo plagiarism and similarity checking. The editorial team evaluates the similarity results to identify potential overlap with previously published works and to maintain academic integrity.
04
Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research interests, and relevance to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, independent, and constructive assessments.
05
Peer Review
The manuscript is evaluated by reviewers who assess its scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, interpretation of findings, and contribution to the field. Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to support the editorial decision and manuscript improvement.
06
Editorial Decision
Following the review process, the editorial team evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations and makes an editorial decision. Possible decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
07
Revision and Re-Review
When revisions are required, authors must respond to reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
08
Final Acceptance and Publication
Once the manuscript satisfies the editorial and peer-review requirements, the manuscript may receive final acceptance and proceed to copy editing, layout preparation, and publication in the appropriate issue of MARFIG.
Review Principles
Objectivity
Confidentiality
Academic Integrity
Fair Evaluation
Constructive Feedback
Scholarly Rigor
Commitment to Quality
Rigorous Review for High-Quality Scholarly Publishing
MARFIG is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and rigorous peer-review process that supports the advancement of knowledge and promotes high standards of scholarly publishing in fisheries and marine resource management.