Journal Policy
Peer Review Policy
Journal of Biological and Sustainability Sciences
Peer Review Model
The Journal of Biological and Sustainability Sciences applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, methodological reliability, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal scope.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. In this process, author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
The final editorial decision is based on reviewer comments, editorial evaluation, scientific validity, clarity, novelty, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.
Peer Review Workflow
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts are first checked by the editorial office for journal scope, manuscript completeness, formatting, ethical statements, originality, language clarity, and basic scientific suitability.
2. Editor Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript has sufficient novelty, methodological quality, scientific relevance, and alignment with the aims and scope of the journal.
3. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic experience, research background, and absence of obvious conflicts of interest.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
JBSS follows a double-blind peer-review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors during the review process.
5. Editorial Decision
The editor considers reviewer comments, scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, clarity, and journal standards before making an editorial decision.
6. Revision and Final Evaluation
If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response to reviewer and editor comments. The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor or sent for further review.
Possible Editorial Decisions
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject and Resubmit
- Reject
Review Timeline
The journal aims to complete editorial screening and peer review in a timely manner. Review duration may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision complexity, and editorial workload.
Authors are encouraged to submit complete, well-prepared manuscripts to reduce avoidable delays during review.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.
- Reviewers should evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodology, data interpretation, clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript.
- Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal benefit.
- Reviewers should declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.
- Reviewers should inform the editor if they identify plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, data problems, image manipulation, or citation manipulation.
- Reviewers should submit review reports within the agreed time or inform the editorial office if more time is needed.
Responsibilities of Authors During Review
- Authors must submit original work that is not under consideration elsewhere.
- Authors must respond to reviewer comments carefully, respectfully, and point by point.
- Authors must clearly explain all changes made in the revised manuscript.
- Authors must provide ethical approval, informed consent, data availability, funding, and conflict of interest statements where applicable.
- Authors must not attempt to identify, contact, influence, or pressure reviewers.
Responsibilities of Editors
- Editors must handle manuscripts fairly, confidentially, and without discrimination.
- Editors must base decisions on scientific merit, journal scope, reviewer comments, ethical compliance, and editorial judgment.
- Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.
- Editors may seek additional reviewers if reports are unclear, conflicting, incomplete, or insufficient.
- Editors are responsible for the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Confidentiality
- Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
- Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the double-blind review process.
- Authors should remove identifying information from manuscript files where required for blinded review.
- Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished data, methods, results, or ideas for personal advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
- Reviewers must decline review invitations where personal, financial, institutional, academic, supervisory, collaborative, or competitive conflicts may influence judgment.
- Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where impartiality may be affected.
- Authors must disclose financial and non-financial competing interests in the manuscript.
- If a conflict is identified after review begins, the editorial office may assign a new reviewer or editor.
Revision Policy
When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment. Failure to provide an adequate response may result in rejection.
Substantial changes made during revision must remain consistent with the original scientific purpose of the manuscript.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a clear and evidence-based explanation to the editorial office. Appeals must address scientific or procedural concerns and should not simply repeat the original submission.
Complaints about peer review, editorial handling, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics may be submitted to the editorial office for review.
Editorial Contact
Questions about peer review, reviewer comments, editorial decisions, appeals, or manuscript handling may be directed to the editorial office.