Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Biology Learning Journal is intended for researchers, teachers, students, and educational practitioners who want to publish scientific articles or serve as a reference to enrich the literature needed in the field of biology education or biological studies. this journal is published twice a year. each article that will be published has gone through a review process.

study areas that can be published in this journal include:

1. Biology Learning

2. Biology Action Research

3. Biology Research and Development

4. Biology Curriculum Development

5. Biology and Instrument Learning

6. Application of Biology Studies for Learning

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Main Cover

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Cover

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Table of Content

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review / Review Policy

Contributions to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviews help the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with the author it can also help the author improve the paper.

Punctuality
Each selected reviewer who feels that he is not eligible to review a manuscript or knows that an appropriate review is not possible must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality
Each text received for review is a confidential document. The text must not be shown or discussed with other people except with the editor's permission.

Standard of Objectivity
Review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The review must express views clearly with supporting arguments.

Source Recognition
The review identifies relevant published works that have not been quoted by the author. Any statement that observations or arguments have been reported previously must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also ask the editor's attention about the substantial similarity or overlap between the text being considered and any other published texts that have their own understanding.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Review may not consider texts that have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any writer, company or institution connected with the text.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review research or knows that its prompt review will not be possible to notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Objectively reviews should be conducted. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should publish relevant work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is observed by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call editor's attention any substantial similarity between manuscripts under consideration and any published paper from which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Process Review
Submitted papers are evaluated by reviewers for contributions, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor will inform you of the results as soon as possible, hopefully between 1 - 2 months. Please note that the paper submission to journal the duration of the review process can be up to 3 months.

Review Process
The text sent is evaluated by the reviewer for contribution, originality, relevance, and presented. The editor will notify you of the results of the review as soon as possible, between 1-2 months. Please note that maybe submitting a text to a journal with the duration of the review process can be up to 3 months.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Ethics

This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher, namely Universitas Sriwijaya.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two International Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review processes are blind peer review.
  3. The factors taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.