Editorial Decision Policy

Didaktika Biologi: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi is committed to making fair, objective, transparent, and timely editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality of the manuscript, reviewers' recommendations, the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's focus and scope, and compliance with publication ethics standards.

1. Authority and Responsibility for Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief holds the overall responsibility for editorial decisions and the quality of published articles. Editorial decisions may be delegated to authorized editors or Section Editors in accordance with their assigned responsibilities.

Editors must ensure that decisions are made independently, objectively, and without undue influence from authors, reviewers, institutions, or other external parties.

 

2. Basis for Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are made by considering the following aspects:

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

b.      Originality and scientific contribution.

c.       Theoretical foundation and research significance.

d.      Appropriateness and rigor of research methodology.

e.       Quality of data analysis, results, and discussion.

f.        Clarity of presentation and academic writing.

g.      Reviewers' comments and recommendations.

h.      Compliance with publication ethics and journal policies.

Reviewers' recommendations serve as important considerations but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision. The editor retains the authority to make the final decision based on the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript.

 

3. Types of Editorial Decisions

After editorial assessment and peer review, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

a.      Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revisions. Minor editorial or formatting adjustments may still be required before publication.

b.      Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements. Authors are expected to address the editor's and reviewers' comments within the specified period.

c.       Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvements, particularly in its theoretical foundation, research methodology, data analysis, interpretation of findings, or academic presentation. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

d.      Reject

The manuscript is rejected when it does not meet the journal's academic standards, falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient originality or scientific contribution, contains fundamental methodological weaknesses, or raises serious ethical concerns.

 

4. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit the revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editors' comments.

Each response should clearly explain the revisions made or provide a reasoned justification when a suggestion is not adopted.

The revised manuscript will be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers.

A revision decision does not guarantee acceptance. The manuscript must meet all academic and editorial requirements before it can be accepted for publication.

 

5. Final Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is considered accepted only after the editor has confirmed that all required revisions and editorial requirements have been satisfactorily fulfilled.

Following final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the copyediting, layout, proofreading, and publication stages in accordance with the journal's editorial workflow.

An official Letter of Acceptance (LoA) is issued only after the final editorial approval and fulfillment of the journal's applicable administrative and publication fee requirements.

 

6. Rejection and Editorial Appeals

Authors whose manuscripts are rejected will be informed of the editorial decision and, where applicable, the reasons for rejection.

Authors may submit a formal appeal if they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or misunderstanding of the manuscript's content.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office with clear supporting arguments. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent authorized editor who was not directly involved in the original decision.

The appeal outcome is final.

 

7. Editorial Integrity and Confidentiality

All editorial decisions must be based on academic merit, ethical considerations, and the journal's established policies. Editors must disclose potential conflicts of interest and refrain from handling manuscripts when their impartiality may be compromised.

All editorial communications, reviewer reports, and unpublished manuscript information must remain confidential.

The journal is committed to maintaining consistency, fairness, and accountability throughout the editorial decision-making process.