Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi (JPB) publishes peer-reviewed research of special importance and broad interest in any area of biology education by research and or result of conceptual studies.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

JPB reviewing policies are:

  • Every submitted paper will be reviewed by at least two peer-reviewers.
  • Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double blind review method).
  • Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references.
  • The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 3 weeks. To screen the plagiarism within the article, Plagiarism Checker X are used.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative

Budapest Open Access Initiative

An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.

For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature. But even in these limited collections, many different initiatives have shown that open access is economically feasible, that it gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature, and that it gives authors and their works vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact. To secure these benefits for all, we call on all interested institutions and individuals to help open up access to the rest of this literature and remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way. The more who join the effort to advance this cause, the sooner we will all enjoy the benefits of open access.

The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to important research findings. There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

While  the peer-reviewed journal literature should be accessible online without cost to readers, it is not costless to produce. However, experiments show that the overall costs of providing open access to this literature are far lower than the costs of traditional forms of dissemination. With such an opportunity to save money and expand the scope of dissemination at the same time, there is today a strong incentive for professional associations, universities, libraries, foundations, and others to embrace open access as a means of advancing their missions. Achieving open access will require new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms, but the significantly lower overall cost of dissemination is a reason to be confident that the goal is attainable and not merely preferable or utopian.

To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two complementary strategies. 

I.  Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.

II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.


Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature is the goal. Self-archiving (I.) and a new generation of open-access journals (II.) are the ways to attain this goal. They are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about by markets or legislation. While we endorse the two strategies just outlined, we also encourage experimentation with further ways to make the transition from the present methods of dissemination to open access. Flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation to local circumstances are the best ways to assure that progress in diverse settings will be rapid, secure, and long-lived.

The Open Society Institute, the foundation network founded by philanthropist George Soros, is committed to providing initial help and funding to realize this goal. It will use its resources and influence to extend and promote institutional self-archiving, to launch new open-access journals, and to help an open-access journal system become economically self-sustaining. While the Open Society Institute's commitment and resources are substantial, this initiative is very much in need of other organizations to lend their effort and resources.

We invite governments, universities, libraries, journal editors, publishers, foundations, learned societies, professional associations, and individual scholars who share our vision to join us in the task of removing the barriers to open access and building a future in which research and education in every part of the world are that much more free to flourish.

February 14, 2002
Budapest, Hungary

Leslie Chan: Bioline International
Darius Cuplinskas: Director, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Michael Eisen: Public Library of Science
Fred Friend: Director Scholarly Communication, University College London
Yana Genova: Next Page Foundation
Jean-Claude Guédon: University of Montreal
Melissa Hagemann: Program Officer, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Stevan Harnad: Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Rick Johnson: Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
Rima Kupryte: Open Society Institute
Manfredi La Manna: Electronic Society for Social Scientists 
István Rév: Open Society Institute, Open Society Archives
Monika Segbert: eIFL Project consultant 
Sidnei de Souza: Informatics Director at CRIA, Bioline International
Peter Suber: Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College & The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
Jan Velterop: Publisher, BioMed Central

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE ETHICS

  1. Determining the name of the journal, the scope of science, the timeline, and the accreditation.
  2. Determining the membership of the editorial board.
  3. Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer review and other parties in the contract.
  4. Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review.
  5. Applying the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights especially on the copyrights.
  6. Conducting the policy reviews on the journals and present it to the authors, editorial board, peer review, and readers.
  7. Making the behavior code guidelines for editor and peer review.
  8. Publishing journals on a regular basis.
  9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainability journal publishing.
  10. Establishing cooperation and marketing network.
  11. Preparing for the licensing and other legal aspects.

EDITOR CODE ETHICS

  1. Improving the quality of publications.
  2. Ensuring the process to maintain the quality of published papers.
  3. Leading the freedom in delivering opinion.
  4. Maintaining the integrity of the author's academic track record.
  5. Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawal, and an apology if necessary.
  6. Owning the responsibility for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the responsibility of the authors.
  7. Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer review to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
  8. Having an open minded personality in accepting the new opinion or views of others who is different than their personal opinion.
  9. Prohibiting in defending our own opinion, the author or third parties which may result in a false decision.
  10. Encouraging the author, in order to make improvements to the paper until it worth to publish.

PEER REVIEW CODE ETHIC

  1. Receiving the task from the editors to review the papers and submit the review to the editor, as a matter of determining the feasibility of the paper for publication.
  2. Reviewing the papers in a timely manner (on time) in accordance with the style guide based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the legality of the author, conclusions, etc.).
  3. Reviewing the papers that have been corrected in accordance with the standards.
  4. Encouraging the author to make improvements in the papers by providing feedback, suggestions, feedback, and recommendations.
  5. Maintaining the author privacy by covering the results of the corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
  6. Reviewers must not review any papers who involve the reviewers in its work, directly or indirectly.
  7. Following the guidelines for peer review in reviewing papers and assessing the evaluation form paper given by the editors.
  8. Reviewing papers substantively by not correcting the grammar, punctuation and mistype.
  9. Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritize the benefit of the paper for the development of science, technology, and innovation; also comprehending the impact on the development of science writing.
  10. Prohibiting in defending own opinion, the author or third parties which may result on decision reference becoming non-objective.
  11. Upholding the value of the objectivity and free from any influences.
  12. Ensuring the confidentiality of findings in the paper until it is published.                            
  13. Having broad understanding on the expertise and able to provide a review of the paper appropriately and correctly.
  14. Refusing to do review if the research is not from the field of expertise. Instead, the peer review should be giving recommendation to the researcher if there is any other expert on the subjects.  
  15. Having an open minded personality in accepting the new opinion or views of others who is different than their personal opinion.
  16. Refusing to do the review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be reached. If absent the peer review should notify the editor as early as possible.    
  17. The results of the review must be presented in an honest, objective, and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are:
    1. Accepted without repair
    2. Accepted with minor repairs (after repaired by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review)
    3. Accepted with major repairs (after repaired by the author, return to the peer review for re-review)
    4. Rejected and recommended for other publication
    5. Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because scientifically the paper is flawed for the community.
  18. Giving rejection for the last recommendation as the last choice related to the feasibility of the papers or with indication of severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
  19. Reviewed papers aren’t allowed to be used for personal or third party interests. Moreover, The use of some of the contents of the reviewed papers must have received permission from the author.

AUTHOR/ARTICLE WRITER CODE ETHICS

  1. Author collectively responsible for the work and the content of the article which cover methods, analysis, calculation, and its details.
  2. Author immediately responds to the comments made by the peer review professionally and timely.
  3. Author should inform the editor if they retract their paper.         
  4. The author describes the limitations in the study.                        
  5. Author respects the publishers if they demand to not to publish the findings in the form of interviews or through any other media before the publication.
  6. The author informs the editor of (a) paper that is part of a phased research, multidisciplinary, and different perspectives.                                
  7. The author makes a statement that the papers submitted for publication is original, has not been published anywhere in any language, and not in the process of submission to another publisher.
  8. If there is any error in the paper, the author should immediately notify the editor or publisher.                                        
  9. The use of materials from other publications which is copyrighted, should be given a written permission and gratitude.
  10. The author refers to the work of others as appropriate in citations and quotations which used in the paper.                                           
  11. When delivering new discoveries or improving inventions the authors should mention the job previous researcher/writer/founder.                                    
  12. The author is not allowed to give a bibliography of the publications if they do not read the publication.                               
  13. If requested, the authors prepared the proof that the research has already met the requirements of the research ethics including the field notes.
  14. Author adequately responds if there are any comments or feedback after the paper published.

Publication Ethics code referenced by the Journal of Humanities Education based on Buku Peraturan Kepala LIPI is sourced from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Scientific Publication Ethics Code can be downloaded here

 

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism Includes But is Not Limited to:

  1. Refer and/or quoting terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing sources in the record citation and/or without stating the source adequately;
  2. Refer and/or quoting random terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing a source in the record citation and/or without stating the source adequately;
  3. Using a source of ideas, opinions, views, or theory without stating the source adequately;
  4. Formulate the words and/or sentences themselves from the source of words and/or phrases, ideas, opinions, views, or theory without stating the source adequately;
  5. Submit a scientific papers produced and/or published by others as a source of scientific work without express adequately.

Prevention

To prevent plagiarism, every article that submitted to Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi will be checked its originality using Plagiarism Checker X

                       

Sanctions

  1. Reprimand;
  2. Letter of warning;
  3. Revocation of the article;
  4. Cancellation of publication.

 

Reference Management

o every article submitted to Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, Citation and Reference are written according to the APA (American Psychological Association) 6th edition reference style. The references shall be ordered based on alphabetical and chronological order. We recommend to use reference manager application such as Mendeley, End Note, Zotero, Refworks, Citeulike or Noodle Tools.

 

Manuscript Withdrawal

Manuscript withdrawal is strongly discouraged. It is a waste of valuable resources that the publisher put. If the author still requests withdrawal of their manuscript, the following guidelines have to be followed

  • Manuscript withdrawal will be permitted only for the most compelling and unavoidable reasons. It is unacceptable to withdraw a manuscript from a journal because another journal is accepting it;
  • The author should submit a request to the editorial office as a letter signed by all authors stating the complete cause that led to the step of manuscript withdrawal;
  • Authors must not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn until they have received appropriate notification to this effect from the editorial office.

 

 

Correction and Retraction Policies

Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi committed to upholding the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata, Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi will be consider to retract in the publication if:

  • They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri-cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  • It constitutes plagiarism
  • It reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of COPE Retraction Guidelines.



https://www.gojosatoru.love/