The ultimate goal of a literature review is the advancement of the given subject. An objective that is realised not via the reporting of novel findings, observations, data, methods or theories, but via the critical evaluation and logical synthesis of prior studies. By identifying, collecting, reporting, synthesising, comparing and contrasting the findings of published studies in a specific domain, review articles aim to suggest future research opportunities and needs, identify research gaps and, more broadly, provide a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic to readers.¹

Thus, readers are by far one of the most important, and often overlooked, pieces of the extremely complex jigsaw puzzle constituting the writing process of a review paper. In fact, given readers of review articles are inevitably from a multitude of backgrounds, experiences and possess varying degrees of familiarity with the topic, it stands to reason that there should be different kinds of review papers. Alternatively, a good review paper may attempt to cater for the needs of all or many different readers. The most common readers of review articles are (i) peer-scientists and researchers working in the same specific research area, (ii) scientists and researchers working in related areas, or even (iii) other scientists and researchers working in completely different areas, but with a curiosity or interest in learning more about the subject, (iv) undergraduate and post-graduate students specialising in that domain, and their teachers, (v) governmental agencies and departments, legislators, regulators, certification and enforcement agencies, (vi) journalists, divulgators or even lay persons with an interest in the topic and (vii) last, but certainly not least, the industry. In this instance, industry should be intended in its broader definition, and in the case of aquaculture includes a host of co-dependent industries and services and their associated personnel. For example, grow-out and hatchery operations, genetic centres, farm suppliers of chemicals and equipment, construction companies and construction materials, business management services including insurance and accounting, feed companies and suppliers of raw materials and additives, veterinary and biosecurity services, processors, logistic services, marketing and retailing sectors, and, within this large and very diverse group of stakeholders, their respective R&D teams.

Clearly, writing a review paper that attempts to address the needs and expectations of all potential readers is difficult, consequently review papers are often written by researchers with their respective peers in mind as the main, likely only, readership. Thus, review papers are consigned as a tool for university-to-university knowledge sharing (n.b. with the term ‘university’ we hereto refer to all scientific and research activities, including academia, research agencies and institutions). Nevertheless, university-to-industry knowledge transfer is regarded as critical to the creation and application of new knowledge, which in turn is a key factor driving economic growth.² It is acknowledged that universities and research agencies are important sources of new knowledge, particularly in the areas of science and technology, including aquaculture. Therefore, developing effective platforms or mechanisms by which university generated science and knowledge can impact the economy is paramount, and review papers, when appropriately crafted play an important role. Yet, two questions arise: how important are review papers for the industry? And, how important is the industry readership for review articles writers?

Addressing the latter, we attempt to summarise the main reasons for academics and research scientists to embark on a review writing exercise. First, publishing in high impact factor and high reputation journals (and typically review journals tick these two boxes), and consequently increasing the likelihood of being read by peers, and possibly ‘more importantly’ being cited by peers, are common key performance indicators of most academic employers. Additionally, often personal satisfaction objectives resulting from the recognition of excellence and expertise, and, in a sense a form of ‘ownership’ of a specific topic, are strong incentives for researchers to write review papers. Increasingly, however, the focus on research impact, including outreach, extension and translation activities are rationales of growing relevance. In fact, being read by and subsequently considered of relevance to the industry provides direct evidence of impact. Increasingly, both impact and engagement are considered important objectives for academia and research centres and may also affect institutional funding. A good review paper, providing a state-of-the-art summary and a critical synthesis of current knowledge, should intrinsically provide great value to industry. Yet, no mechanisms exist to acknowledge the use of, let alone quantify, the impact of review papers to the industry. Conceivably, this results in researchers forgetting, or ignoring, the industry as a central component of their readership.

From an industry viewpoint, review articles are important if they provide reliable and relevant information, which can be translated into effective knowledge transfer and ultimately industry advancement. Reviews consolidating state-of-the-art knowledge, critical analyses and more formal information synthesis such as meta-analyses on selected topics may be exceptionally useful tools for the industry. On the other hand, publications detailing information of no direct relevance, information already available or in worst case scenarios, information not yet known to direct competitors, is not attractive to industry. This is not to be confused with the outdated trope of applied vs. fundamental research. Indeed, discussions with industry partners and colleagues reveal that at times applied R&D publications may be of little relevance for the industry, whereas fundamental science publications may be highly relevant.

As such, it appears that an increased or a rejuvenated respect for the different, albeit co-operative roles of academia and industry would be beneficial. To this end, industry should invest in R&D to maintain competitiveness and protect IP, and academia should provide fundamental science at a pre-competitive level. Naturally, a considerable grey area exists in the space between, or at the confluence, of these two extreme ideals. For example, academia-industry partnerships with shared objectives and responsibilities. However, it is beneficial to delineate the roles and expertise provided by the respective parties to avoid potential misunderstanding and consternation. At times, publications led by academics, who assume an industry perspective, might result in conclusions of little real-world relevance. Conversely, R&D activities led by industry, who assume an academic perspective, might result in slow progress and little scientific output. Accordingly, we believe that an increased and genuine cooperation not only in R&D activities but also and specifically on the matter of review papers is beneficial for all.

In the case of reviews, this might translate in scholarly publications being critically reviewed also by industry representatives, particularly when approaching applied R&D topics. This would enable greater consideration of issues related to industrial applications. However, this would require industry cooperation and availability in the peer-review process and, at the same time, scientists writing review papers should be open to, and proactively seek, industry peer-revision and/or direct industry contribution via co-authorship. Therefore, on the one hand, this would lead to increased appreciation for review articles by industry, despite the potential for compromised competitive advantages in some cases.

The possible development of a novel system by which the impact of a review paper on industry activities and practices can be measured, or at least assessed and noted, would certainly be very useful. This might, for example, include the acknowledgement of the resources used by industry R&D teams in their publicly released reports and communication campaigns, or at least simply communicating to the authors the usefulness and subsequently, their appreciation of the work, either formally or informally. On the other hand, academia should stimulate a forward-facing vision for the industry, as opposed to continual rumination of issues and ideas already on the agenda. This will favour the anticipation of issues and trends and will promote discussions along the value chain and with policy-makers. This will ultimately benefit both sides of this love-hate relationship between academia and industry, resulting in shared benefits for the continuous betterment of the sector. Reviews in Aquaculture hopes that working together, we can enhance positive impact in our sector by advancing knowledge and identifying new solutions to overtake the environmental, economic and societal challenges that the aquaculture sector faces.

Following on from the recommended and auspicated increased industry involvement in the review writing process, we conclude this editorial introducing three articles showing industry co-authorship out of the 25 articles published in this issue. The work from de Leaniz et al.,³ that received the Sena De Silva Paper award for this issue, features a group of 28 authors, from a great variety of institutions and industry partners, who joined forces to provide a timely and pioneering overview on the welfare needs, challenges and solutions of the cleaner fish (lumpfish) used to mitigate parasitic diseases in the salmon industry. A topic of growing interest and importance, requiring substantial and cohesive R&D effort from all stakeholders. The work from Rombenso et al.,⁴ comprising a senior and corresponding author from industry, is an opinion piece which makes the case to explore the exploitation of the omega-3 sparing effect, towards producing farmed products with a higher content of beneficial long chain omega-3 fatty acids by optimising their nutritional utilisation. To conclude, another industry-academia joint review effort from Sievers et al.⁵ provides an in-depth analysis of challenges and opportunities for submerged aquaculture systems, with interesting biological considerations given the diverse nature of fish species, particularly when it comes to swim bladders.

We hope you enjoy this first issue of Reviews in Aquaculture for 2022 and that the information provided in these 25 review articles will contribute to the simultaneous advancement of science and knowledge, which benefits both academia and the industry.

文献综述的最终目标是推进特定主题。不是通过报告新发现、观察、数据、方法或理论，而是通过对先前研究的批判性评估和逻辑综合来实现的目标。通过识别、收集、报告、综合、比较和对比特定领域已发表研究的结果，评论文章旨在建议未来的研究机会和需求，确定研究差距，更广泛地说，提供最先进的技术读者对研究主题的理解。¹

因此，读者是构成评论论文写作过程的极其复杂的拼图游戏中最重要但经常被忽视的部分之一。事实上，鉴于评论文章的读者不可避免地来自多种背景、经历和对主题的不同程度的熟悉，因此应该有不同类型的评论文章是合乎情理的。或者，一篇好的评论论文可能会尝试满足所有或许多不同读者的需求。评论文章最常见的读者是 (i) 在同一特定研究领域工作的同行科学家和研究人员，(ii) 在相关领域工作的科学家和研究人员，甚至 (iii) 在完全不同领域工作的其他科学家和研究人员，但有好奇心或有兴趣进一步了解该主题，(iv) 专门从事该领域的本科生和研究生及其教师，(v) 政府机构和部门、立法者、监管机构、认证和执法机构，(vi) 新闻工作者、传播者甚至是对该领域感兴趣的非专业人士主题和 (vii) 最后但并非最不重要的行业。在这种情况下，行业应具有更广泛的定义，就水产养殖而言，包括许多相互依赖的行业和服务及其相关人员。例如，养殖和孵化业务、遗传中心、化学品和设备的农场供应商、建筑公司和建筑材料、包括保险和会计在内的业务管理服务、饲料公司和原材料和添加剂供应商、兽医和生物安全服务、

显然，写一篇试图满足所有潜在读者的需求和期望的评论论文是困难的，因此评论论文通常是由研究人员撰写的，他们各自的同行是主要的，可能只是读者群。因此，评论论文被视为大学间知识共享的工具（n . b . 我们在此使用术语“大学”来指代所有科学和研究活动，包括学术界、研究机构和机构）。然而，大学到行业的知识转移被认为对于新知识的创造和应用至关重要，而这反过来又是推动经济增长的关键因素。²众所周知，大学和研究机构是新知识的重要来源，特别是在科学技术领域，包括水产养殖。因此，开发有效的平台或机制使大学产生的科学和知识能够影响经济至关重要，而审查论文在适当的情况下发挥着重要作用。然而，出现了两个问题：评论论文对行业有多重要？而且，评论文章作者的行业读者群有多重要？

针对后者，我们试图总结学者和研究科学家开展评论写作练习的主要原因。首先，在高影响因子和高声誉期刊上发表文章（通常是评论期刊勾选这两个框），从而增加被同行阅读的可能性，并可能“更重要地”被同行引用，是常见的关键绩效指标大多数学术雇主。此外，通常由对卓越和专业知识的认可产生的个人满意度目标，在某种意义上是对特定主题的“所有权”形式，是研究人员撰写评论论文的强烈动力。然而，越来越多地关注研究影响，包括外展、推广和翻译活动，成为日益重要的理由。实际上，被行业阅读并随后被认为与行业相关提供了影响的直接证据。越来越多的影响和参与被认为是学术界和研究中心的重要目标，也可能影响机构资金。一篇好的评论论文，提供最先进的总结和对当前知识的批判性综合，本质上应该为行业提供巨大的价值。然而，没有任何机制可以承认评论论文对行业的影响，更不用说量化了。可以想象，这会导致研究人员忘记或忽略该行业作为其读者群的核心组成部分。影响力和参与度都被认为是学术界和研究中心的重要目标，也可能影响机构资金。一篇好的评论论文，提供最先进的总结和对当前知识的批判性综合，本质上应该为行业提供巨大的价值。然而，没有任何机制可以承认评论论文对行业的影响，更不用说量化了。可以想象，这会导致研究人员忘记或忽略该行业作为其读者群的核心组成部分。影响力和参与度都被认为是学术界和研究中心的重要目标，也可能影响机构资金。一篇好的评论论文，提供最先进的总结和对当前知识的批判性综合，本质上应该为行业提供巨大的价值。然而，没有任何机制可以承认评论论文对行业的影响，更不用说量化了。可以想象，这会导致研究人员忘记或忽略该行业作为其读者群的核心组成部分。

从行业的角度来看，如果评论文章提供可靠且相关的信息，则它们很重要，这些信息可以转化为有效的知识转移并最终促进行业进步。整合最新知识、批判性分析和更正式的信息综合（如对选定主题的荟萃分析）的评论可能是该行业非常有用的工具。另一方面，详细说明没有直接相关性的信息、已经获得的信息或在最坏的情况下、直接竞争对手尚不知道的信息的出版物对行业没有吸引力。这不应与应用研究与基础研究的过时比喻相混淆。事实上，与行业合作伙伴和同事的讨论表明，有时应用的研发出版物可能与行业无关，

因此，似乎对学术界和工业界的不同（尽管是合作）角色增加或重新尊重将是有益的。为此，工业界应投资于研发以保持竞争力并保护知识产权，而学术界应提供竞争前水平的基础科学。自然，在这两种极端理想之间或汇合处的空间中存在相当大的灰色地带。例如，具有共同目标和责任的学术界-工业界伙伴关系。然而，描述各方提供的角色和专业知识是有益的，以避免潜在的误解和恐慌。有时，由具有行业观点的学者领导的出版物可能会得出与现实世界几乎没有关联的结论。相反，研发 以学术视角为主导的D活动可能会导致进展缓慢，科学产出少。因此，我们认为，不仅在研发活动，而且特别是在审查论文问题上，加强和真正的合作对所有人都是有益的。

在审查的情况下，这可能会转化为学术出版物，也受到行业代表的严格审查，特别是在处理应用研发主题时。这将有助于更多地考虑与工业应用相关的问题。然而，这将需要行业合作和同行评审过程中的可用性，同时，撰写评论论文的科学家应该开放并主动寻求行业同行修订和/或通过共同作者的直接行业贡献。因此，一方面，尽管在某些情况下可能会损害竞争优势，但这将导致行业对评论文章的欣赏程度增加。

可能开发一种新系统，通过该系统可以衡量或至少评估和记录评论论文对行业活动和实践的影响，这肯定会非常有用。例如，这可能包括承认行业研发团队在其公开发布的报告和宣传活动中使用的资源，或者至少只是简单地向作者传达有用性，然后正式或非正式地传达他们对工作的欣赏。另一方面，学术界应该激发对该行业的前瞻性愿景，而不是不断反思已经提上日程的问题和想法。这将有利于对问题和趋势的预测，并将促进价值链上的讨论以及与政策制定者的讨论。水产养殖评论希望通过共同努力，我们可以通过提高知识和确定新的解决方案来应对水产养殖部门面临的环境、经济和社会挑战，从而增强对该部门的积极影响。

继在评论撰写过程中建议和预谋增加行业参与度之后，我们在这篇社论的结论中介绍了本期发表的 25 篇文章中的 3 篇显示行业共同作者的文章。de Leaniz 等人³的作品获得了本期 Sena De Silva 论文奖，由来自各种机构和行业合作伙伴的 28 位作者组成，他们联手提供了及时和开创性的概述用于减轻鲑鱼行业寄生虫病的清洁鱼（块状鱼）的福利需求、挑战和解决方案。一个越来越受关注和越来越重要的话题，需要所有利益相关者的大量和有凝聚力的研发努力。Rombenso 等人的工作，⁴由来自工业界的资深和通讯作者组成，是一篇观点文章，它提出了探索利用 omega-3 节约效应的案例，通过优化其营养来生产具有更高含量有益长链 omega-3 脂肪酸的农产品利用率。总而言之，Sievers 等人的另一项产学联合审查工作。⁵对水下水产养殖系统的挑战和机遇进行了深入分析，考虑到鱼类物种的多样性，特别是在鱼鳔方面，具有有趣的生物学考虑。

我们希望您喜欢 2022 年第一期水产养殖评论，并且这 25 篇评论文章中提供的信息将有助于科学和知识的同步进步，这对学术界和行业都有好处。