Peer Review Guidelines

Peer Review Guidelines

Jurnal Biolokus: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi dan Biologi relies on qualified reviewers to provide fair, objective, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines are intended to support reviewers in evaluating manuscripts and maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal’s publications.

Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, that they can complete the review within the specified deadline, and that no potential conflict of interest could compromise their impartiality. Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers who decline an invitation are encouraged to respond promptly and, where possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively and provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback. The review should consider the following aspects, as applicable to the manuscript:

  • Relevance and originality: Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, novelty, and contribution to knowledge in biology or biology education.
  • Title and abstract: Accuracy, clarity, and consistency with the manuscript’s content.
  • Introduction: Clarity of the research problem, relevance of the literature, identification of the research gap, and research objectives.
  • Methods: Appropriateness, rigor, and clarity of the research design, procedures, instruments, and data analysis.
  • Results and discussion: Accuracy and clarity of the findings, adequacy of the analysis and interpretation, and engagement with relevant literature.
  • Conclusion and implications: Consistency with the findings and clarity of the study’s contributions and implications.
  • Presentation and references: Organization, readability, quality of tables and figures, and relevance and accuracy of citations and references.

Reviewers should identify the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, explain the reasoning behind their assessments, and provide specific suggestions for improvement. Comments must remain professional and focus on the manuscript rather than the authors personally.

Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers should not contact authors directly about the manuscript without the editor’s authorization.

Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other concerns regarding research integrity must be reported confidentially to the editor, with supporting details where possible. Suggestions to cite additional literature should be scientifically justified and relevant to the manuscript, not intended to increase the reviewer’s or others’ citation counts.

Use of Generative AI

Reviewers must comply with the journal’s AI Policy when conducting peer review. Submitted manuscripts and confidential review reports must not be uploaded to generative AI tools or other external services that are not authorized for confidential material. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their evaluations and must not delegate their independent scientific judgment to AI tools.

Review Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers should provide comments that help the editor make an informed decision and help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should distinguish major concerns affecting scientific validity or the manuscript’s contribution from minor issues involving clarity, presentation, or formatting.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

These recommendations are advisory. The editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript’s quality, and the journal’s policies.