Editorial Decision Policy

Journal of Biology Education Research (JBER) operates a rigorous, transparent, and objective double-blind peer-review workflow designed to maintain the highest standards of scholarly integrity. The editorial management system ensures that every submitted manuscript is evaluated impartially by qualified independent experts specializing in biology education, life science pedagogy, and related disciplines.

Editorial Independence & Ethical Commitment

  • Editorial Independence: JBER strictly adheres to the core principle of editorial independence. Editorial decisions are governed exclusively by academic merit, scientific validity, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s focus and scope. Publication decisions are never influenced by Article Processing Charges (APCs), author affiliations, institutional origins, nationality, or political and financial considerations.

  • Commitment to Publishing Ethics: The journal strictly adheres to international ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply fully with these principles throughout the submission, evaluation, and publication stages.

Publication Workflow Timeline

To maintain transparency and assist authors in planning their submissions, JBER targets the following editorial timeframe:

  • Initial Screening (Desk Review): 1–2 Weeks

  • Double-Blind Peer Review Process: 4–8 Weeks

  • Author Revision Window: 2–4 Weeks (depending on the revision level)

  • Submission to Final Decision: 10–14 Weeks

Step-by-Step Editorial Decision Workflow

  1. Submission and Preliminary Screening (Desk Review)

    Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Managing Editor conducts an initial screening to verify:

    • Direct alignment with the focus and scope of JBER.

    • Full adherence to author guidelines, manuscript formatting, and ethical declarations.

    • Plagiarism and text overlap screening using similarity detection tools.

      Outcome: Manuscripts failing foundational technical, ethical, or thematic requirements receive a Desk Rejection. Submissions meeting these standards proceed to editorial assignment.

  2. Editor Assignment

    Eligible manuscripts are assigned to a Handling Editor (Section or Associate Editor) with subject-matter expertise relevant to the study. The Handling Editor oversees reviewer selection, monitors review timelines, and synthesizes reviewer assessments.

  3. Double-Blind Peer Review

    JBER enforces a strict double-blind peer review system where the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually anonymous. The Handling Editor invites a minimum of two independent external peer reviewers to evaluate the manuscript against explicit criteria:

    • Originality and pedagogical contribution to biology education.

    • Theoretical grounding and contextual relevance within biological sciences education.

    • Robustness of research design, data analysis, and methodological rigor.

    • Clarity of presentation, academic writing quality, and precision of references.

  4. Editorial Evaluation and First Decision

    Following receipt of all peer reviewer reports, the Handling Editor evaluates the feedback and formulates an editorial recommendation. The potential decision categories are:

    • Accept Submission: The manuscript meets all publication criteria without requiring changes.

    • Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires minor contextual, formatting, or technical refinements.

    • Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The study shows merit but requires substantial revision, additional data analysis, theoretical expansion, or clarification of findings. Acceptance is contingent upon satisfactory re-review.

    • Decline Submission (Rejection): The manuscript displays critical methodological deficiencies, lacks novelty, or falls significantly below the required scientific standard.

  5. Author Revisions and Response Submission

    Authors receive the formal decision notice alongside anonymized reviewer feedback. Authors requesting revisions must submit:

    • The revised manuscript with all changes clearly marked (e.g., track changes or highlighted text).

    • A comprehensive, point-by-point response document detailing how each reviewer and editorial comment was resolved.

  6. Re-Evaluation and Final Editorial Decision

    The Handling Editor reviews the revised files and may return the manuscript to the original peer reviewers if major revisions were involved. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the complete peer-review trail and retains sole and final authority for the publication decision.

  7. Production and Publication Scheduling

    Accepted manuscripts enter production for copyediting, layout formatting, figure optimization, and DOI assignment. Proofs are provided to the corresponding author for final verification before publication in the designated semi-annual issue (May or November).

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal a formal rejection if they can demonstrate that the decision resulted from a factual error or substantiated bias in the review process.

  • Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the rejection notification, providing specific, point-by-point counter-evidence against the reviewer or editorial critique.

  • The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal alongside an independent Editorial Board member who had no prior involvement with the manuscript.

  • Speculative disagreements with academic judgments do not constitute valid grounds for an appeal. The final decision issued by the appellate panel is definitive.