Reviewer Registration Form

All incoming articles will be checked for authenticity to prevent plagiarism using Turnitin and/or iThenticate anti-plagiarism software. I'd like you to please read here for information about Plagiarism.

Reviewer guidelines

A reviewer's duties in a journal involve several critical aspects to ensure the quality and integrity of scientific publications. The reviewer is responsible for both the author and the editor regarding the manuscript.

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the author

Evaluate Content Quality: Reviewers must assess the originality, clarity, and scientific contribution of the submitted article. This includes evaluating whether the research is relevant, innovative, and adds to the existing knowledge in the field.
Examine Methodology: Reviewers need to ensure that the research methodology used by the authors is appropriate, valid, and reliable. This includes examining the research design, data analysis techniques, and sample collection.
Check References and Literature: Reviewers should check whether the authors have cited relevant and recent literature. The references used should reflect a deep understanding of the topic and the current state of research.
Assess Clarity and Structure: Reviewers need to ensure that the article is written clearly and well-structured. This includes evaluating the logical flow, language, and data presentation. Comments given by the reviewers should be clear, relevant to the subject, and accurate, which creates interest in the authors.
Ethics and Compliance: Reviewers must assess whether the research adheres to ethical standards, including issues like plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and ethical approval for studies involving human or animal subjects.
Recommendations: Based on their assessment, reviewers should provide recommendations to the journal editor on whether the article should be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected. Usually, comments and suggestions for improvement accompany these recommendations. After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decisions based on the reviewer's recommendations:

> Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
> Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes.
> Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be reworked, but it may be accepted with significant changes. It will require a second round of review.
> Resubmit Elsewhere: Articles cannot be accepted because the substance of the article is incompatible with the field of science.
> Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.
> See Comment: see the feedback from the reviewer for the Editor.
Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to the authors, which can help them improve the quality of their research and address weaknesses in the article.

Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the editor

We notify the editor immediately if she/he is unable to review on time and provide the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work
Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it, and giving decisions based on rating
Provide an apparent and levelheaded reason for making decisions based on common ethics
Personal and financial conflicts should be addressed.
Stave off direct contact with the author without the editor's permission.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. Manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the procedure is commenced
Constructive Evaluation: Decisions and judgments should be constructive and provide legible insight to the author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process.
Competence: The interviewee with passable expertise will be able to finish the review. People needing more expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.
Impartiality and Integrity: The reviewer's decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, and the scope of the BIOEDUSCIENCE instead of on the financial, racial, or ethnic origin of the authors.
Timeliness and responsiveness: The reviewer should be responsible for completing the review within the appropriate time and taking all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the BIOEDUSCIENCE.

The role of a reviewer is crucial in maintaining the quality standards of scientific publications and helping authors improve their work. All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review based on initial editor screening, anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees, and consequent revision by article authors when required.

We sincerely thank reviewers who give their time to peer-review articles submitted to BIOEDUSCIENCE. Rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of high-quality academic publishing.

Benefits of Reviewers

Peer review is essential to the publication process, ensuring that BIOEDUSCIENCE maintains high-quality standards for its published papers. Reviewing is often an unseen and unrewarded task. We are striving to recognize the efforts of reviewers.

When reviewing, you will:

Are included in the journal's annual acknowledgment of reviewers.
Receive a personalized reviewer Certificate and Letter of Assignment (SK).
You can build your profile on Publons and have your reviewing activity automatically added for participating journals. Publons profiles can also be integrated with ORCID.

Invitation to Review

At least two experts review manuscripts submitted to BIOEDUSCIENCE. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's quality and to recommend to the external editor whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

We ask invited reviewers to:

Accept or decline invitations quickly, based on the manuscript title and abstract.
Request an extension if more time is required to compose a report.

As part of the assessments, reviewers will be asked:

To rate the originality, significance, quality of the presentation, scientific soundness, interest to the readers, overall merit, and Indonesian language of the manuscript;
To provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript;
To provide a detailed, constructive review report;

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers should keep the manuscript's content, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.
BIOEDUSCIENCE operates a double-blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. In all other cases, review reports are considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.