Peer Review Process

1. General Policy

Jurnal Biologi Papua is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, originality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous peer review process.

The journal adopts a double-anonymous peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during manuscript evaluation.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and established principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Biologi Papua undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor.

The initial screening evaluates:

1. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

2. Compliance with the Author Guidelines.

3. Originality and potential scientific contribution.

4. Clarity of research objectives and methodology.

5. Completeness of the manuscript and required documentation.

6. Compliance with research and publication ethics.

7. Potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned for preliminary revision or rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two qualified reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, professional competence, and suitability for evaluating the manuscript.

The editorial team seeks to ensure reviewer independence and avoid conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when the initial evaluations are substantially inconsistent or when additional specialist expertise is required.

4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

Jurnal Biologi Papua applies a double-anonymous peer review process.

Under this system:

• Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

• Reviewers are not provided with the authors' identities.

• Manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential.

• Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit and independent evaluation.

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts without identifying information in the files provided for anonymous review.

The editorial team is responsible for checking manuscript files and relevant metadata to support the anonymity of the review process.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and Novelty: The extent to which the research contributes new scientific knowledge or meaningful insights.

2. Scientific Relevance: The relationship between the research topic and the journal's focus and scope.

3. Research Methodology: The appropriateness, clarity, reliability, and reproducibility of the methods.

4. Data Quality and Analysis: The validity of the data, analytical methods, and interpretation of findings.

5. Results and Discussion: The scientific significance of the results and their relationship to relevant literature.

6. Conclusions: The extent to which conclusions are supported by the research findings.

7. References: The relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of the supporting literature.

8. Presentation Quality: The clarity, organization, scientific terminology, and overall readability of the manuscript.

9. Research Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical requirements, including relevant permits or approvals when necessary.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and recommendations supported by scientific reasoning.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the scientific and editorial requirements and may proceed toward publication.

Revisions Required: The manuscript requires modifications before further consideration. Revisions may be minor or major depending on the nature of the concerns raised.

Resubmit for Review: Substantial changes are necessary, and the revised manuscript requires further evaluation.

Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the scientific or editorial standards of the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the authorized editor after considering the review reports, manuscript quality, and journal policies.

7. Manuscript Revision

When revisions are required, the corresponding author receives relevant reviewer comments and editorial instructions.

Authors must address the reviewers' comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining the changes made.

If authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editor or returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

The editorial team may request additional revisions when necessary.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

The decision considers:

• Recommendations provided by peer reviewers.

• The quality and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

• The adequacy of revisions.

• Compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

The editor may accept, request further revision, or reject a manuscript.

Acceptance is not guaranteed, even when reviewers provide favorable recommendations.

If an editor has a conflict of interest involving a manuscript, the decision must be delegated to another qualified and impartial editor.

9. Copyediting, Production, and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, and proofreading.

Authors may be asked to review the final proof to identify typographical errors, formatting problems, or other production-related inaccuracies.

Substantive changes after acceptance require editorial approval.

The final article is published through the journal's electronic publishing system in accordance with the publication schedule.

10. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, research data, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence.

Unpublished information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal, professional, financial, or institutional advantage.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision through the journal's official editorial contact.

Appeals must identify the decision being challenged and provide relevant scientific or procedural justification.

Appeals will be assessed by an impartial editor or other authorized editorial representative.

The journal may seek further expert evaluation when necessary. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Concerns regarding unethical conduct during peer review will be addressed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and applicable COPE guidance.

12. Documentation of the Peer Review Process

Editorial activities, including reviewer assignments, review reports, revision requests, author responses, and editorial decisions, are documented in the journal's electronic editorial management system.

These records support transparency, accountability, continuous quality improvement, and verification of the editorial process by authorized assessors.

Confidential reviewer information and unpublished manuscript materials remain protected.

13. Commitment to Review Quality

Jurnal Biologi Papua is committed to maintaining an objective, constructive, independent, and academically rigorous peer review process.

The editorial team periodically evaluates its review procedures to promote scientific integrity, editorial efficiency, and continuous improvement in publication quality.