Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to  Celebes Biodiversitas : Jurnal Sains dan Pendidikan Biologi (CELEBIO) undergo a rigorous, transparent, and structured peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and contribution of published articles in the field of ecology and conservation.

CELEBIO implements a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This system is designed to promote fairness, objectivity, and the elimination of bias in editorial decision-making.

The journal is committed to maintaining a timely, ethical, and accountable review process in accordance with international best practices.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor to determine whether it meets the journal’s basic requirements.

At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for:

  • alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • compliance with author guidelines
  • overall academic quality and clarity
  • relevance to ecology and conservation

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without further review. This step ensures efficiency and prevents unnecessary delays in the review process.

2. Technical, Ethical, and Plagiarism Check

All manuscripts undergo an initial technical and ethical screening, which includes:

  • plagiarism detection using similarity-checking software
  • verification of manuscript structure and formatting
  • assessment of ethical statements (e.g., ethical clearance, permits)
  • screening for potential ethical concerns (e.g., duplicate submission, data issues)

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

The selection of reviewers is based on:

  • subject-matter expertise
  • publication track record
  • absence of conflicts of interest

The review process is conducted under a double-blind system, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers.

4. Peer Review and Evaluation

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript within a specified timeframe. The evaluation focuses on:

  • originality and novelty of the research
  • scientific significance and contribution
  • methodological rigor and validity
  • clarity, structure, and quality of presentation
  • relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments, along with clear recommendations for editorial decisions.

5. Types of Editoral Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revision (resubmission required)
  • Reject

In cases where reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may:

  • consult an additional reviewer
  • make a decision based on editorial judgment

All decisions are communicated clearly to authors, along with reviewers’ comments.

6. Revision and Resubmission Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments.

  • A point-by-point response to reviewers must be provided
  • Revised manuscripts must clearly indicate changes made
  • Major revisions may undergo a second round of peer review

Failure to submit revisions within the specified time frame may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process.

7. Final Decision

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on:

  • reviewers’ recommendations
  • quality of revisions
  • scientific merit and contribution

The editorial decision is final and aims to ensure the integrity and quality of the journal.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must:

  • not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts
  • not use unpublished data for personal research
  • declare any conflicts of interest

IJEC strictly enforces ethical standards throughout the review process.

9. Timeliness and Review Transparancy

IJEC strives to ensure a timely and efficient review process.

Authors will be informed of:

  • manuscript status updates
  • reviewer feedback
  • editorial decisions

While maintaining quality, the journal aims to minimize delays and ensure transparency in communication.

10. Post-Acceptance and Production Process

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to:

  • copyediting
  • layout editing
  • proofreading

Authors will receive a galley proof for final review. Only minor corrections are allowed at this stage.

The final version of the article will be published online as part of the journal issue.

11. Integrity of The Peer Review Process

IJEC is committed to safeguarding the integrity of the peer review process. Any attempt to manipulate the review process, including:

  • fake reviewer identities
  • reviewer coercion
  • unethical influence on editorial decisions

will be treated as serious misconduct and handled according to ethical guidelines.