View entry
Verifying access...
Entry #10162
PURE Insights Submission Form
Submitted: 2023-11-02 23:04:22
Form Fields
Status
Admin Only
ID: 46
Saving...
✓ Saved
Submission Agreement
ID: 33
Consent: 1
Text: I agree to the Submission Agreement.
Description: 5
Your Name
ID: 1
First: Max
Last: Robinson
Your Email Address
ID: 2
Enter Email: mrobinson23@wou.edu
Institutional Affiliation
ID: 35
Western Oregon University
Faculty Sponsor(s)
ID: 37
| Mari | Sakiyama | sakiyamam@mail.wou.edu |
Authors
ID: 39
| Max | Robinson | mrobinson23@wou.edu | Western Oregon University | 1 |
Title
ID: 40
The Fish Trade: a Brief Look at the Complex Impact of Captive and Wild Breeding on Fish Populations
Abstract
ID: 12
Aquarium keeping, a hobby which has continually grown in popularity, has resulted in an international industry that affects approximately 2,000 species of freshwater and saltwater fish. The fish trade is very complex, including both captive-bred and wild-caught fish, and impacts both local trade economies and biodiversity of the area. Collection and breeding practices vary from harmful to helpful. Overall, there is a dearth of relevant data collection on the aquarium trade and the multifaceted effects on wild fish populations, genetic diversity and well-being of aquarium fish, and the economic welfare of those in the trade.
Keywords
ID: 41
aquarium, ornamental fish
Upload Your Submission
ID: 13
Has this been submitted to a professional journal?
ID: 42
No
What license would you like to publish your work under?
ID: 65
CC BY-NC
Review History
Admin Only
ID: 54
| 20953fcf-c8a3-4c05-a937-5876c2760823 | Erin Baumgartner | 2176424 | requested | 02/06/2024 14:22:24 | ||||||
| 65e5c763-a7a7-40d6-89c6-e9205043729c | Array | 186b77a2-7119-42df-a72c-3231b9992d06 | requested | Report submitted | Major revisions required (revise and resubmit) | 2024-02-20T20:15:27.000Z | https://drive.google.com/open?id=14p-EjMkeyurRmHEvyKR54sGkpe8OsA8O The purpose of a review paper is to thoughtfully synthesize a larger body of research to uncover broader trends and identify illustrative anomalies. This particular review neither includes a sufficient body of information so as to be illuminating, nor is it structured so as to allow for compelling additions to our understanding of the issue. It appears that the intent of the author is to explore the role of captive breeding in the ornamental aquarium trade, which is a very interesting topic. In some regions and for some taxa captive breeding is a benefit to populations and ecosystems but in other regions and ecosystems may be detrimental. I recommend an extensive re-organization of the paper that clearly and cohesively presents the overarching issue - that the ornamental aquarium trade is complex, poorly regulated, and that there are economic incentives for individuals and governments to engage in unsustainable practices and then moves on to structure the review of the literature in an exploration of captive breeding as an example of the complexities of aquarium ornamentals as a a global industry. To more clearly address this central thesis, the author will first need to break down in more detail exactly what captive breeding is, how extensively it is employed (including with any possible quantitative descriptors), and what, if any, international regulations govern it (don't just mention any treaties or conventions that exist, but clearly articulate what they are). To more clearly demonstrate how captive breeding as a solution is contextually dependent on many factors will require organizing and connecting the examples and counterexamples as supporting arguments for when captive breeding is beneficial and when it is not. The paper would benefit greatly from more clarity of detail and examples, including careful use of naming conventions (that means clearly identifying taxa with scientific names along with common names), identification of regions in which various ornamental capture or breeding programs occur. I also recommend a more thorough and careful sourcing of references. Some inclusion of secondary sources and websites is to be expected but for these non-primary sources to make up nearly half of the references and to make up the entirety of the supporting references in some sections (e.g. Project Seahorse) is not appropriate for a scientific review article. I've inserted a series of comments into the article with more specific recommendations for improvement. | 2024-02-07T00:28:48.000Z | 2024-02-19T20:18:10.000Z |
Review Management
Review History
| Review ID | Reviewer | Request Date | Status | Response Date | Review Link | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loading review history... | ||||||
Assign Reviewer
Maximum number of reviewers have been assigned to this entry.
| Assign | ID | Name | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loading available reviewers... | |||
Add a new reviewer
(Refresh page after adding)