Peer Review Policy

Didaktika Biologi: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure an objective, fair, and independent assessment of submitted manuscripts. The peer review process is intended to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and contribution of manuscripts to the field of biology education.

1. Peer Review Model

In the double-blind peer review system, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Reviewers receive anonymized manuscript files, while authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers.

The editorial team manages communication between authors and reviewers to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the review process.

2. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and relevance to the subject of the submitted manuscript. The journal seeks reviewers who can provide independent and constructive assessments of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. The editorial team is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and managing the review process.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

• Relevance to the focus and scope of the journal.
• Originality and contribution to the development of knowledge in biology education.
• Clarity of research objectives, theoretical framework, and research questions.
• Appropriateness of research design, methods, and data analysis.
• Accuracy and relevance of results and discussion.
• Quality of references, academic writing, and overall manuscript presentation.
• Compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, fair, and constructive comments based on academic considerations.
• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
• Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor if an extension is needed.
• Avoid using unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
• Provide clear comments and recommendations to assist the editor in making an informed decision.

5. Review Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. Recommendations may include:

• Accept without revision.
• Accept with minor revisions.
• Major revisions required.
• Reject.

Reviewers' recommendations serve as important considerations in the editorial decision-making process but do not constitute the final publication decision.

6. Editorial Responsibility

The editor is responsible for overseeing the peer review process and making the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection. Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

The journal ensures that editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, or other non-academic considerations.

7. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All participants in the peer review process must respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and review communications. Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content without appropriate authorization.

Any concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, or potential misconduct identified during the review process must be reported to the editor for further consideration in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.