Abstract
Good presentation of a manuscript is essential for its fast and successful editorial review. A well-written and thoroughly organized manuscript is easy to read and presents data in a manner easy to understand without a lot of repetition. Editors and reviewers are more inclined to engage with authors to improve scientific quality of well-presented manuscripts, further increasing the chances of publication. Although general approaches to scientific writing have been published, little attention has been focused on scientific writing in aquaculture research. Here, we provide students and less-experienced aquaculture researchers with some insights on research organization and manuscript presentation in order to improve their chances of getting their research into print.
INTRODUCTION
International publication is the channel for dissemination of original research through which researchers participate in the global scientific community. Publication can be in the form of posters at technical meetings, short communications, critical notes, extension bulletins, review articles, and research reports.
Peer review publication is the process through which scientific research is given legitimacy and is essential for the advancement of a career in scientific research, including aquaculture. The number of published articles, the quality of the journal where they have been published, and the number of article citations are commonly used in the evaluation of scientific productivity (Hayer et al. Citation2013).
Along with the rise of the aquaculture industry, the number of international scientific journals dealing with aquaculture has increased from less than ten just a few decades ago to over 130 in 2013 (Froese & Pauly Citation2013). Aquaculture is predominantly an affair of less-industrialized economies. Despite the dominance of, particularly, Asia in terms of fish production and consumption, the technology that drives productivity and efficiency is derived from scientific research that is largely conducted and published in Europe and North America. Less than 20% of the world’s population lives in the 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), but out of the total of 139,257 engineering and technology papers published in 2007, almost 60% came from OECD countries (UNESCO Citation2010).
The acceptance rate of manuscripts submitted for publication is estimated at ˜40% (Aarssen et al. Citation2008), and important among the reasons for rejection is poor presentation. Regardless of language, well-organized and clearly articulated papers will be considered more seriously and used more frequently than those difficult to read.
General guidance on issues to consider in producing a scientific research article are available (Cargill & O’Connor Citation2013; Carpenter Citation2001; Day Citation1994; Elefteriades Citation2002; Hengl & Gould Citation2002; Jennings et al. Citation2012; Shubrook et al. Citation2010), and these general principles also apply to aquaculture research publication. Here, we focus on aspects of specific relevance to scientific writing in aquaculture research to help students and inexperienced aquaculture scientists improve the acceptance rate of their submitted manuscripts. We begin with a review of basic concepts in the preparation of an experiment and continue with a review of the major elements of a research publication.
DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Many research projects submitted for publication are rejected because they have already been done by others. Scientific progress is cumulative, building bit by bit from simple principles to gradually understand complex phenomena. As Isaac Newton wrote in 1676: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Each new generation benefits from the lessons of the past, but only if they know what has already been done.
Repeating research to test established fact can sometimes be useful in situations where general knowledge needs to be adapted to local conditions, but this kind of research is best placed in local extension bulletins or trade magazines and is seldom accepted by international journals.
The literature review is thus an essential part of the problem definition and the choice of methods. To do this properly, it is absolutely essential for any working scientist to be up-to-date in his or her field.
CHOICE OF OUTLET
Some thought should go into the choice of journal or meeting in which the research will be submitted for publication. Some of the journals that have aquaculture within their remit are listed in . Some journals have a regional focus; others concentrate on certain aspects of aquaculture such as parasitology, nutrition, genetics, economics, etc. Some journals deal with basic research, some with more applied research. One should be as specific as possible when targeting a journal so as to avoid automatic rejection.
More prosaic things to consider in selecting a journal include: impact factor of the journal, the duration of the review process, publication fees, reputation of the editorial board, and the reputation of the publishing house holding the journal. In a situation of multiple investigators/authors conducting research, all the coauthors should be involved in the choice of the journal prior to submission. In this way, situations like conflicts of interests can be either prevented prior to or declared during the submission process.
THE RESEARCH PLAN
A confusing manuscript often starts with a confusing research plan. Before doing anything else, the researcher should carefully define the question being addressed (e.g., the hypothesis) and the methods and statistical model that will be used to test the hypothesis.
Sometimes, methods used by others can simply be repeated. New technology or approaches to problem solving, however, can present opportunities to study phenomena that were previously impenetrable. Aquaculture scientists are well advised to build bridges and collaborations with partners in other fields and be open-minded to new ideas that can produce innovative research.
Research plans are not only helpful in ensuring that common mistakes in aquaculture research (e.g., using individual fish as replications when tanks or ponds are the actual unit upon which a treatment is applied) but are often important components of grant proposals. A well-structured research plan should include detailed information on:
A clear statement of the hypothesis
The start date and the duration of the experiment
TABLE 1 Journals with a history of publishing aquaculture research (adapted from Froese & Pauly Citation2013)
The experimental (statistical) design, including layout of treatments and replications
Treatments and sampling protocols
Laboratory, computer, and other equipment and materials
Expected results
It is always a good idea to request other members of the research team and/or colleagues from elsewhere to review the research plan to help identify fatal flaws that might waste time and money and preclude publication. The Research Plan should be made available to the entire research team, and salient features (e.g., sampling protocols, feeding levels, water-quality testing) should be posted. Whenever there are any questions about how to proceed, one can refer back to the Research Plan.
PREPARING A MANUSCRIPT
Upon completion of the experiment and analysis of the data, the entire research team and coauthors/investigators should be made aware of the findings and the responsibility of each person defined and the order of authorship agreed. Order of authorship is generally based on:
Definition of the problem
Development of the research plan
Execution of the research plan
Statistical analysis
Manuscript production (writing)
These roles are often played by different people within a team. How the workload is managed varies according to country and culture, but to be consistent with international scientific practice, the usual one to two people who are mostly responsible for the research and can answer detailed questions should be the first authors. The corresponding author is the person who can best answer questions, who has prepared the manuscript and manages the review process, and will be easily located by people with questions. For example, a major professor may be the corresponding author in cases where a student does not know where s/he will be in coming years. People who have political authority, but no special ownership of the paper, are typically acknowledged in a separate section, but are not listed as authors.
Depending on the weight of the information that it contains, a manuscript submitted for publication as an original article can be accepted for publication as it is or as a short communication/note. In the original article, the data contained in the manuscript cover the entire subject, while in the short communication/note the data are just a part of the subject or a preliminary work to a more elaborated study. As such, the final decision on the type of article to be published will be made by the editors, in agreement with the authors.
ORGANIZATION AND FORMATTING
Each scientific journal has its own style and format, and manuscript formatting must comply with the “instructions/guidelines for authors” of the selected journal. This includes such things as format for margins, font, spacing, line numbering, reference style, graphics, tables, etc. While editors vary in the degree to which they insist on formatting, most manuscript submissions these days are done through an unforgiving online submission system, so it is generally a waste of everyone’s time to send in manuscripts that do not conform to the journal’s style. They will simply be returned to the corresponding author for compliance.
By and large, scientific manuscripts are comprised of eight sections:
Cover page
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References
Sometimes, Results and Discussion are combined. Sometimes, there is a separate Conclusions section after the Discussion. Although it is difficult to propose a figure that is applicable to all manuscripts, the approximate length of each of the main sections of a manuscript (in percent) should be: Cover Page/Abstract/Acknowledgements (10%), Introduction (10%), Material and Methods (20%), Results (25%), Discussion (25%), References (10%).
One key aspect of proper manuscript organization that is often overlooked is the order in which ideas are presented. If an experiment has subcomponents, these should be always treated in the same order in the Abstract, the Introduction, the Materials and Methods, the Results, and the Discussion. Keeping things in order this way helps readers find what they are looking for, without have to wade through the entire article.
Cover Page
The cover, or title, page lists the title of the manuscript, the names, affiliations and contact details of the authors, and indicates the corresponding author. In some cases, the authors are requested to provide a suggested running title that will appear on the top of each page of the manuscript when published. The running title should capture in a few words the gist of the article that helps the readers know at which article they are looking. For example, an article entitled: “Dietary Protein Requirements of Indian Major Carp Fingerlings Grown to Market Size in Bangladeshi Ponds” might have a running title of “Bangladesh Carp Diets.”
Also common on the title page are five to seven keywords that can be used in literature or online searches to find the article. To this end, the words already in the title should not be repeated as keywords, as any search will already find them. The keywords should attempt to capture the broader context in which the research was done so that researchers in related fields can find the article. For the previously mentioned example, keywords might include the names of specific Indian Carps (Rohu, Catla, Mrigal), the region in which the results should be applicable (South Asia, Bay of Bengal, tropics), the specific habitat in which the system operates (floodplains, coastal zones), the reason for growing carp in Bangladesh (food security, rural livelihoods), or other aspects of the culture system (juvenile nutrition).
The title should be explicit and as short as possible, capturing the main ideas but not overdoing it. The title generally includes information on the treatment (e.g., “grading”), the species of fish (e.g., “common and scientific name”), life stage of the fish species studied (e.g., “fry”), and the production system (e.g., “recirculating aquaculture systems”). There are several types of titles:
Interrogative: “Does Fry Grading prior to Stocking Improve the Production of Channel Catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems?”
Affirmative: “Fry Grading prior to Stocking Improves the Production of Channel Catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”
Descriptive: “Effects of Fry Grading prior to Stocking on Fish Production of Channel Catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”
Abstract
Once a reader has found an article with an interesting title, he usually first reads the abstract. For articles in online publications that charge for their content, often the abstract is the only part most people will read. The abstract is generally written in one short (200 words is a long abstract) paragraph. In certain cases (e.g., the World Aquaculture Society annual meetings), extended abstracts that include actual presentation of key data and are up to one page in length are published in place of a full article.
Normal abstracts should include only salient features of the study, including objectives, treatments, main results, and conclusions/recommendations. First in the abstract should be a statement of the objective of the study, for example (from Yossa et al. Citation2011): “A study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary avidin on growth, survival, food conversion, biotin status and gene expression in juvenile zebrafish, Danio rerio.”
The second part of the abstract should describe the treatments used. For example (from Yoshitomi & Nagano Citation2012): “Dietary fish meal was replaced with 0.0%, 15.4% and 100.0% Antarctic krill meal (KM0, KM15, and KM100) and with 0.0%, 15.4%, and 100.0% low-fluoride krill meal (LFK0, LFK15 and LFK100).”
Results reported in the abstract are only those directly relevant to the title and objectives of the study, for example (from Kong et al. Citation2012): “The activities of superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase gradually declined with decreasing temperatures and then significantly lowered at 5 and 10°C compared with those at 27°C (P < 0.01). Significant accumulation of malondialdehyde, a lipid peroxidation indicator, was observed at 5 and 10°C (P < 0.01). Compared with the control, the activities of four different ATPases significantly increased at 10°C (P < 0.01).”
The last sentence of the abstract is the conclusion (and recommendation) of the study, which is also the take-home message (from Seno-o et al. Citation2008): “These results indicate that the partial or total dietary replacement of fish oil with olive oil prevents discoloration of dark muscle without affecting the growth of young yellowtail after 40 days of feeding.”
It is not appropriate in the abstract to include the background of the study or discussion of the results. Citations and abbreviations are also not included.
Introduction
The Introduction defines technical terms and expressions, presents the research problem, summarizes the state of knowledge and previous attempts to solve the problem, explains what this new study will do (objectives) and why it is relevant, and clearly states the hypothesis to be tested.
The choice of fish species and production system for the study should be explained relative to the global and/or local production of the fish, problems encountered in the production cycle, etc.
It should be pointed out that the introduction of a scientific journal article is not the same as the literature review in a thesis or dissertation. Except in the rare case that a problem is extraordinarily complex should the Introduction exceed one page in length. Also, for papers submitted to aquaculture journals, it is not necessary to state the importance of aquaculture or describe how diseases or nutrition are important. Any reader of an aquaculture journal will already be familiar with these issues.
Keep in mind that the order in which issues are raised in the Introduction should be maintained throughout the paper.
Materials and Methods
The Materials and Methods section is like a cookbook. It can be considered as step-by-step instructions to anyone interested in repeating the study, either to confirm or challenge the findings. This is an essential part of the scientific process, and researchers should make every effort to include the detail necessary to exactly replicate the study. In particular, any irregularities (e.g., loss of a replication) should be carefully explained.
The materials and methods derive directly from the research plan. The exact order in which the methods are described should be roughly chronological. For example, source of the fish, experimental units, replications, feeding, water quality, sampling, harvest, laboratory procedures, calculations, and statistical analysis. As with the Introduction, subjects treated in the Materials and Methods section should be maintained in the order in which they are first mentioned.
Common subheadings within the Materials and Methods section often include: Fish, System (or Facility), Experimental Design, Feed and Feeding, Sample Collection and Analytical Procedures, Measurements/Calculations, and Statistical Methods.
Fish
In this subsection, information on the source, species, strain, initial size, and name of supplier is provided. Any treatment prior to the start of the experiment (e.g., quarantine, type of feed provided, feeding level and frequency, acclimation period, grading, etc.) should be mentioned.
Facility
The production units (e.g., pond, aquarium, tank) should be describe in terms of construction material (e.g., earthen, concrete, plastic), color, dimensions, actual volume (often different than total volume) and, if relevant, arrangement. The latter can be especially important in cases where interaction between units might be significant, such as ponds in a series or tanks in a row where one receives more light or disturbance than others.
Depending upon the nature of the study, light intensity and photoperiod can be important.
Also in this subsection is a description of the water supply (well, surface water, tap), water exchange (recirculating, flow-through, static), range of physicochemical parameters of the water (temperature, pH, salinity, hardness, conductivity, nitrite, nitrite, ammonia, etc.), and all the actions taken to maintain desirable water quality and quantity should be presented.
Experimental Design
In this subsection, the treatments, the experimental units, the sampling units, the replications, and the experimental plan (e.g., completely randomized, complete blocks, factorial, etc.) are presented. To save space in the manuscript, treatments are often given short labels (e.g., T1, T2 or High Input, Low Input, etc). This should be done in such a way that is intuitive to readers.
Feed and Feeding
Unfed treatments are generally a thing of the past in aquaculture research. We all know now that unfed fish do not grow. In this subsection, the type of feed (purified, semipurified, practical), form of feed (moist pellet, dry pellet, powder, etc.), feeding level (restricted, demand, to satiation), feeding frequency (number of feedings per day and explanation of how the total ration is divided), and feeding method (hand feeding or automatic feeding) are presented. Practical information on methods for collecting uneaten feed and the calculation of the feed conversion ratio should also be reported.
The proximate analysis of the feed(s) should be presented, usually as a table, and any irregularities noted. Usually, proximate analysis includes crude protein, lipid, ash, and carbohydrate. In some cases (e.g., nutrition studies), total energy level that combines the energy available from all sources is also important, as can be fatty acids and amino acids profiles, digestibility, etc.
Sample Collection and Analytical Procedures
In this subsection, information on the periodicity of sampling (start of the experiment, end of the experiment, every week, etc.), the type of sample (whole fish, liver, kidney, etc.), sample processing for storage, and the storage conditions (temperature, duration, etc.) is presented. References for standard methods should only be cited, but details on any modifications or nonstandard methods should be thoroughly described.
Measurements/Calculations and Statistical Methods
The formulae used to calculate the study parameters (with references) are provided in this subsection. For example: “feed conversion ratio FCR (g/g) = (Quantity of feed distributed (g) x Dry matter content of feed)/(final wet mass (g) – initial wet mass (g)).”
Statistical methods (t-test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, regression, etc.), significance level (P < .05 or P < .01), multiple comparison test (Duncan’s multiple range test, Tukey’s test, etc.), and name and version of the software used to perform statistical analysis on the data should be mentioned.
Results
The results of aquaculture research are generally in terms of some trait of economic interest. Financial returns are the most obvious, but fish composition (protein, fatty acids), feed utilization (feed intake, feed conversion ratio, protein efficiency ratio, etc.), growth (specific growth rate, percentage weight gain, final weight, etc.), survival rate, disease resistance, etc., are common. Anything that went wrong during the study should be mentioned in the results.
The results are presented in the form of text, tables, and figures. The text of the results section is generally short and straightforward, reported without comment. Tables and/or figures help the reader visualize the findings. The text should help the reader interpret data presented in the tables and figures, for example (from Jirsa et al. Citation2011): “Final weight, per cent weight gain, survival and FCR values are summarized in Table 7. Final weight and percent weight gain of fish decreased significantly (P < 0.05) as fishmeal was replaced below the 300 g kg−1 level, with final weights ranging from 41.2 g (110.5% weight gain) in the FM15 treatment to 62.8 g (218.6% weight gain) in the FM40 treatment. There was also a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in survival from 99.0% to 69.2% as FM was replaced below 300 g kg−1 (Table 7). FCR values were high and not statistically (P > 0.05) different between all treatments, ranging from 1.64 to 1.92.”
Figures and tables should likewise complement and not repeat either each other or the text. Figures can be photographs, maps, diagrams, graphs, or drawings. The format for photos (JPEG, TIFF, etc.) is dictated by the journal. Resolution of photos is normally >300 dpi.
Data reported in tables and figures are usually accompanied by a summary of statistical analysis. For most purposes, detailed ANOVA reporting of sums of squares, etc., adds little to the interpretation of results. Most researchers simply include an asterisk or superscript letter or number to indicate which results are statistically significant at a given level of uncertainty (P).
All tables and figures must be cited in the text and numbered according to their order of appearance in the manuscript. Table and figure captions should be self-explanatory, meaning that the reader should be able to understand the table and figure without referring to the text. In a typical aquaculture grow-out experiment, for example, a table caption might read: “Specific growth rate (SGR) of juvenile (15 g) Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) reared for 90 days in earthen ponds on a prepared diet (T1) or dried bugs (T2). Values with different superscripts within a column are significantly different (P < .05).” Table captions are generally at the top of the table, while figure captions appear under the figure. Nobody knows why.
Discussion
As with the Introduction, the Discussion section of a journal article is nowhere near as thorough as would be the case for a thesis or dissertation. A Discussion section that goes on for more than three pages usually needs careful review to eliminate things that a professional reader either should know or can easily find in the references cited.
The basic point of the discussion is to put the results into context and explain what they mean to readers and to the development of aquaculture. This is usually done by comparing the findings of a research project with those of others that have done similar work. Attention should be focused on previously reported findings that do not support the new results. Also of relevance are errors or accidents in the research protocols or execution that make the findings difficult to understand.
As an applied science, the discussion is not just a list of all the findings of all the articles that have ever been written on a particular topic. The literature discussed should be of direct relevance to the topic at hand. For example, a paper about essential amino acids in tilapia diets should limit the discussion to other work on amino acids in tilapia and should not get into either other nutrients (e.g., fatty acids) or species with which tilapia have little or nothing in common (e.g., barracuda).
It is often helpful if, at the beginning of the discussion, the objectives and hypothesis are repeated. The discussion gives the authors the opportunity to demonstrate how their work contributes to the advancement of aquaculture and aquaculture science. To keep ideas straight and easy to follow, each paragraph should contains only one idea, and all the paragraphs follow a logical order established back in the Introduction (Shubrook et al. Citation2010).
At the end of the Discussion section, the conclusions and/or recommendations are stated relative to the hypothesis of the study and a closing statement made on the directions for future work. The take-home message should be briefly and clearly stated more or less as it appears in the abstract.
Acknowledgments
This section typically begins with a word of thanks to people and institutions that supported the work, including reviewers, mentors, and sometimes family who gave up time so that the work could be successful. For externally funded research, it is important to mention the name (and project number) of the institution that provided the funds used to carry out the experiment.
References
Some scientists seem to think that the more references there are in a paper, the better. While a thorough review of the literature is important in theses, dissertations, and review articles, this is generally not the case for original research. For the research to be relevant, most of the articles cited should be no older than 5 years, and even less in fast-moving fields such as molecular genetics.
The role of references is to provide a context in which the research was carried out (past history of the field), save space (standard methods), and give credit where it is due (avoid plagiarism).
Citation is not necessary for statements of the obvious or common knowledge. Stating that fish live in water, for example, does not require a reference to some basic biology textbook. A clue as to what should be taken as common knowledge and what needs referencing can be gleaned from the publication date. Anything older than 20 years should either have been accepted as known or rejected as erroneous, so is usually not worth citing.
The exact format for citations and references differs among journals. Again, no one knows why. Increasingly, websites are used as citations. Personal communications are a special type of reference for which each journal has a special format.
MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
Once the manuscript has been constructed, all of the research team should carefully and critically review the paper prior to submission. This is to make sure that a best effort has been made to catch mistakes that can make the research team and institute look bad and waste the time of reviewers and editors. Nonnative speakers should generally seek the help of a native English speaker or professional translator to look at the manuscript prior to submission. Many good research reports are rejected only because the language is bad.
Submitting an article that is full of typographical errors, misspellings, missing references, etc., often earns an immediate rejection. All new computers have spelling and grammar checkers. Use them.
The submitting author is generally requested to provide a cover letter on behalf of all the authors that declares that all the authors have agreed on the submission of the manuscript to this journal, that the information contained in the manuscript is original, and that the manuscript has not been submitted somewhere else for publication.
Most journals require that tables, figures, and captions appear separately from the main text. Nobody knows why. Each table and figure is presented on a new page (with the title on top of the table). Figure legends usually appear on a separate page, after the references.
SUMMARY OF TIPS FOR GOOD SCIENTIFIC WRITING
Keep it simple; avoid long sentences that confuse readers; sentences of a maximum of 20–25 words are easy to read and to understand.
Don’t repeat yourself; say things once. If the text is well constructed and easy to follow, it will not be necessary for readers to search around for items of special interest.
Keep topics in order; this will also make it easy for the reader to follow and find things.
Use the “grammar and orthography” option of your editing software to correct basic spelling and grammar errors.
Avoid plagiarism by always giving credit to the authors of the ideas borrowed from literature or personal communication by adequately citing the sources.
The research team and trusted colleagues should critically review the manuscript prior to submission.
REFERENCES
- Aarssen, L.W., T. Tregenza, T. A. E. Budden, C. J. Lortie, J. Koricheva, and R. Leimu. 2008. Bang for your buck: Rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal 1:14 –19.
- Cargill, M., and P. O’Connor. 2013. Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Carpenter, K. 2001. How to write a scientific article. The Journal of Paleontological Sciences. http://www.aaps-journal.org/submission%20pdf/How%20to%20Write%20a%20Scientific%20Paper.pdf
- Day, R. A. 1994. How to write and publish a scientific paper. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
- Elefteriades, J. A. 2002. Twelve tips on writing a good scientific paper. International Journal of Angiology 11:53 –55.
- Froese, R.and D. Pauly (Eds.). 2013. FishBase; World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (12/2013).
- Hayer, C.-A., M. Kaemingk, J. J. Breeggemann, D. Dembkowski, D. Deslauriers, and T. Rapp. 2013. Pressures to publish: Catalysts for the loss of scientific writing integrity? Fisheries 38:353 –355.
- Hengl, T.and M. Gould. 2002. Rules of thumb for writing research articles. http://www.itc.nl/library/papers/hengl_rules.pdf
- Jennings, C. A., T. E. Lauer, and B. Vondracek. 2012. Scientific communication for natural resource professionals. Herndon, VA: American Fisheries Society.
- Jirsa, D., A. Davis, K. Stuart, and M. Drawbridge. 2011. Development of a practical soy-based diet for California yellowtail, Seriola lalandi. Aquaculture Nutrition 17:e869 –e874.
- Kong, X., G. Wang, and S. Li. 2012. Effects of low temperature acclimation on antioxidant defenses and ATPase activities in the muscle of mud crab (Scylla paramamosain). Aquaculture 370–371:144 –149.
- Seno-o, A., F. Takakuwa, T. Hashiguchi, K. Morioka, T. Masumoto, and H. Fukada. 2008. Replacement of dietary fish oil with olive oil in young yellowtail Seriola quinqueradiata: effects on growth, muscular fatty acid composition and prevention of dark muscle discoloration during refrigerated storage. Fisheries Science 74:1297 –1306.
- Shubrook, J. H., J. Kase, and M. Norris. 2010. How to write a scientific article. Osteopathic Family Physician 2:148 –152.
- UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO science report: The current status of science around the world. Paris: UNESCO.
- Yoshitomi, B., and I. Nagano. 2012. Effect of dietary fluoride derived from Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) meal on growth of yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata). Chemosphere 86:891 –897.
- Yossa, R., P. K. Sarker, S. Karanth, M. Ekker, and G. W. Vandenberg. 2011. Effects of dietary biotin and avidin on growth, survival, feed conversion, biotin status and gene expression of zebrafish Danio rerio (Hamilton-Buchanan). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B 160:150 –158.