Focus and Scope

The scope of writing in this journal are Biology education research includes:

• Study and Learning Biology
• Modern Biology Education Content
• Teaching Strategies for the Classroom and Laboratory
• Field Activities in Biology Education
• Social and Ethical Implications of Biology
• Biology Learning Media

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah is a double-blind peer-review journal. Every paper submitted to Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer-review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by the Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with the Journal focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief 
The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be an appropriate reviewer (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer-review process at Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of guidance and counseling and educational psychology who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer-review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer, when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted
The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor. If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah stores back issues and current articles following LOCKSS idea of keeping lots of copies of our items on several servers to keep them safe. All contents are digitally submitted to Indonesian National Library's Indonesia OneSearch. Published issues are also sent to LIPI (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia) the Indonesian Institute of Sciences to be retained in its repository. More...

Screening for Plagiarism

The Journal has an authority to screen articles for plagiarism. We use iThenticate and online Plagiarism Checker to check the authenticity of the article.

Publication Ethics Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Publication decisions The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.

The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Fair play An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Confidentiality The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Duties of Reviewers Contribution to Editorial Decisions Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Promptness Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Duties of Authors Reporting standards Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Authorship of the Paper Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Article Processing Charge

The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Bioterdidik: Wahana Ekspresi Ilmiah that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.