Focus and Scope

Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology is a scientific journal focused on biodiversity and biotechnology. This is a peer-reviewed journal and is published twice time a year. This journal covers original research and review in the following areas: biodiversity and environment, biotechnology, agriculture biotechnology, food biotechnology, medical biotechnology, bioinformatics, molecular biology, biochemistry, bioinformatics, phyto-pharmacy, herbal medicine, and animal science. Other topics are welcome if it discusses about biodiversity or biotechnology. This journal accepts submission from all over the world. All submitted articles should have never been published elsewhere, nor under consideration for other publication.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The articles submitted to Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology will be processed through a formatting review by the editor and independently reviewed by two peer reviewers. The review process applies Double Blind method. Decisions from reviewers are a top priority for editors to make decisions. The time required by reviewers to complete a round review process is three weeks. Generally, prospective reviewers will be selected based on their reputation in the suitability of their expertise. The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based on their reports/recommendation. After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decision based on reviewers’ recommendation:

> Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
> Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
> Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
> Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

Publication Frequency

This journal is published twice time a year in June and December

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.

Publication Ethics

Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology (JBB) is a peer-reviewed electronic international journal. This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher (Universitas Sebelas Maret). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology (JBB) journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.  

Universitas Sebelas Maret as the publisher of Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology (JBB) takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Faculty of Agriculture, Sebelas Maret University and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of the  Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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. In order to make publication decisions, the editors may confer editor's meeting by considering reviewers' suggestion.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates 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.

Acknowledgment 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.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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 behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment 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.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.

Declaration of Generative AI Use

Authors preparing a manuscript for the Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology can use Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools to support them. However, these tools must never be used as a substitute for human critical thinking, expertise, and evaluation. AI technology should always be applied with human oversight and control. For this reason, Journal of Biodiversity and Biotechnology adopts the following policy regarding the use of Generative AI and AI-assisted tools in manuscript preparation, analysis, and review.

Transparency and Disclosure

Authors must fully disclose any use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, Midjourney, DALL·E, Grammarly, etc.) in the preparation of the manuscript.
Disclosure should be included in a dedicated section titled “Declaration of AI Use” at the end of the manuscript, specifying:

• The tool(s) used
• The purpose of use (e.g., language editing, figure creation, coding assistance)
• The scope and extent of assistance

Undisclosed use of AI tools may be considered a breach of publication ethics.

AI Cannot Be Listed as an Author

Generative AI tools cannot be credited as authors, co-authors, contributors, or correspondents.
Only humans with verifiable intellectual contributions may be listed as authors.

Responsibility and Accountability

Authors bear full responsibility for:

• The accuracy and validity of all content generated with or assisted by AI
• Checking for errors, fabricated information, incorrect citations, or biased outputs
• Ensuring that text, data, figures, or code produced with AI do not infringe copyright or ethical standards

The journal will not accept manuscripts containing unverifiable or fabricated data produced by AI tools.

Restrictions on AI-Generated Content

AI tools may be used for:

• Grammar correction and language refinement
• Drafting text that is then substantially revised by the author
• Figure enhancement, image clarity improvement, or aesthetic editing
• Data analysis assistance (e.g., coding help), where authors retain full control and verify results

AI tools may NOT be used for:

• Generating research data, experimental results, or statistical outcomes
• Fabricating citations or literature summaries
• Producing images or figures that may misrepresent scientific findings
• Writing substantial sections of the manuscript without human revision
• Peer review reports or confidential material assessment

Data, Images, and Figure Integrity

All data, images, and figures must reflect factual and verifiable results.
If image-editing AI tools are used (e.g., to improve brightness, clarity, or color), authors must ensure that:

• No scientific information is altered
• No manipulation misleads interpretation

AI Use by Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors must NOT use Generative AI tools to analyze, summarize, or provide feedback on confidential manuscripts.
AI tools may only be used for non-confidential tasks such as grammar checking or non-sensitive text drafting.

Ethical Considerations

Misuse of AI tools, such as generating false data, misrepresenting findings, or failing to disclose AI use, may lead to:

• Manuscript rejection
• Retraction after publication
• Reporting to the authors’ institution
• Future submission restrictions

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship is reserved for individuals who have made substantial and meaningful contributions to a manuscript. These contributions must go beyond routine or administrative tasks and involve intellectual input at various stages of the research process. To be listed as an author, one must meet all of the following conditions: (1) significantly contributed to the study’s conception or design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; (2) participated actively in drafting the manuscript, providing substantial revisions, or critically reviewing it for important intellectual content; (3) approved the final version of the manuscript for submission and publication; and (4) agreed to be accountable for the integrity of the entire work, including resolving any questions related to its accuracy or ethical conduct.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that every listed co-author fulfills these criteria and that no inappropriate authors are included. All co-authors must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors are discouraged after submission and will only be considered under special circumstances. In such cases, the corresponding author must provide a detailed justification and written consent from all affected authors. Once a manuscript is accepted, changes in authorship are subject to editorial approval and may be declined if appropriate documentation is not provided. If a change is required post-publication, it will be handled through a formal correction notice.

Contribution Details

To enhance transparency in scholarly publishing, the journal encourages authors to clearly outline the specific contributions made by each co-author. This should be done using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, which provides standardized terms for different roles such as conceptualization, methodology, software development, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Each author’s name should be followed by the roles they performed, and this contribution statement will appear alongside the published article. At least one author should serve as the guarantor who accepts full responsibility for the integrity of the work from start to finish.

In addition to named authors, individuals who contributed to the project in other capacities such as through technical support, funding acquisition, general supervision, or scholarly discussion should be acknowledged in a dedicated Acknowledgments section. Their full name and affiliation must be included, and authors are responsible for notifying them and obtaining their consent to be listed. If groups or institutions contributed to the study in a collective capacity (e.g., clinical investigators or supporting institutions), their role should be briefly described.

Any assistance from AI-based tools (such as large language models used for drafting or editing text) must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript. While these tools may assist the writing process, the human authors remain fully responsible for ensuring the originality, accuracy, and ethical compliance of the content.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct involves fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in conducting, reviewing, or reporting research and writing articles. When authors are found guilty of such misconduct or other serious irregularities in published articles, Editors must maintain the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

In suspected misconduct cases, Editors and the Editorial Board will follow COPE's best practices to resolve the complaint and address the issue fairly. This includes an investigation by the Editors. Manuscripts found to contain misconduct will be rejected. If a published paper is found to have misconduct, a retraction will be issued and linked to the original article.

The first step is to validate the allegation and assess if it aligns with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also includes determining if the complainants have any conflicts of interest.

If there is a possibility of scientific misconduct or significant research irregularities, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is asked to provide a detailed response on behalf of all coauthors. After evaluating the response, further review and expert involvement (e.g., statistical reviewers) may be necessary. If it appears unlikely that misconduct occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or corrections published as letters to the editor, along with a correction notice, may suffice.

Institutions are expected to conduct thorough investigations of scientific misconduct allegations. Authors, journals, and institutions must ensure the scientific record's accuracy. By appropriately addressing concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the journal will uphold the scientific record's validity and integrity.

Plagiarism Policy

We maintain a strong commitment to academic integrity and uphold the highest standards of ethical writing.

We are strictly against plagiarism in any form. All submitted manuscripts will be screened for textual similarities using plagiarism detection tools. However, authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a self-assessment of their manuscripts prior to submission to ensure originality and proper citation of all sources.

• Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% will be automatically rejected without further consideration.

• This threshold excludes properly cited references and standard terminologies but includes all forms of unattributed copying.

Conflict of Interest

This journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of transparency and ethical conduct in academic publishing. This policy provides definitions of conflicts of interest and describes procedures for addressing conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, editors, the journal, and the publisher, whether identified prior to or after publication. The journal adheres to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition of Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or entity has financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships or interests that could influence or appear to influence their objectivity, integrity, or decision-making in the context of research, review, editorial work, or publication processes.

2. Identification of Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the publication process including authors, reviewers, editors, and others are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest relevant to the work they are submitting, reviewing, editing, or publishing. These potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

Financial interests: Funding sources, stock ownership, employment, consultancy arrangements, or other financial ties related to the research.

Personal relationships: Close personal or familial relationships with individuals involved in the research or publication process.

Academic relationships: Collaborations or academic affiliations that could affect objectivity or create perceptions of bias.

Competing affiliations: Relationships with competing organizations that might have conflicting interests in the research or its outcomes.

Intellectual property: Ownership of patents, copyrights, or intellectual property rights potentially impacted by the research or publication.

3. Handling Conflicts of Interest

The management will address conflicts of interest with diligence and transparency.

For Authors: Authors are required to disclose all potential conflicts of interest during the manuscript submission process. If a conflict of interest is identified after publication, authors should promptly inform the editorial board. The editorial board will address the conflict transparently and, if necessary, issue corrections or retractions.

For Reviewers: Reviewers must decline invitations to review if they have conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. If a conflict arises during the review process, reviewers should immediately notify the editorial board for appropriate action.

For Editors and Journal Staff: Editors and journal staff involved in the review and publication process must recuse themselves from handling submissions in which they have conflicts of interest. When uncertainty arises, the editorial board will decide on the appropriate course of action.

For Publishers: The publisher must implement policies to address potential conflicts of interest within its organization. The publisher should ensure that editorial decisions and processes are free from financial or competing interests.

4. Transparency and Disclosure

This journal will clearly outline its conflicts of interest policy and inform all stakeholders of the requirements for disclosure. Disclosures made by authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders will be published alongside the relevant articles, reviews, or editorials to ensure transparency. Additionally, the journal will limit or restrict access to the publication process for editors, reviewers, and stakeholders who co-author articles submitted to the journal.

Post-publication Discussion

We recognizes that scholarly discourse continues beyond publication. The journal encourages constructive and respectful discussion of published articles as a means to advance understanding, clarify findings, and refine knowledge according to the focus and scope. In accordance with COPE’s core practices and WAME’s guidance, post-publication discussions should contribute to the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Readers and authors may submit letters to the editor or short commentaries addressing articles published in the journal. Submissions should be concise, supported by relevant evidence, and directly related to the article under discussion. All submissions will undergo editorial assessment to ensure their relevance, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Where online commenting is available, comments may be moderated to maintain constructive discussion.

Authors of the original article will normally be given an opportunity to respond to substantive comments or critiques. Accepted commentaries and author responses may be published and linked to the original article to facilitate further scholarly exchange. Discussions that identify potential errors or concerns about research integrity will be assessed under the journal’s Corrections and Retractions policy.

Correction and Retraction

This journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Published articles may require amendment when significant errors, omissions, or concerns about research integrity are identified. Authors, readers, and reviewers are encouraged to report such issues to the Editor-in-Chief, providing specific details and supporting evidence. Reports will be assessed impartially, in consultation with the authors and, where appropriate, reviewers, editorial board members, or relevant institutions, following COPE’s guidance and WAME’s recommendations.

Corrections will be issued when confirmed errors affect the interpretation or understanding of an article but do not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. Author-originated errors may be addressed through a corrigendum, while errors introduced during journal production may be addressed through an erratum. Each correction notice will clearly describe the error, explain the amendment, and be permanently linked to the original article. Any changes to the published article will be clearly identified to preserve a transparent publication record.

Retraction will be considered when there is clear evidence that an article’s findings are unreliable because of a major error, fabrication, or falsification, or when the publication involves plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research. Retraction decisions will be based on the available evidence and the need to protect the scholarly record. A formal retraction notice will identify the article, state who is retracting it, and explain the reasons, distinguishing between honest error and misconduct where possible. The article will ordinarily remain accessible but will be clearly marked as retracted and linked to the notice.

An expression of concern may be issued when substantial concerns exist about an article’s reliability or integrity but the available evidence is inconclusive, or an investigation is ongoing or likely to be prolonged. The notice will explain the concerns and be linked to the article. It will be updated or replaced with an appropriate notice when further evidence becomes available or the investigation concludes. Authors are expected to cooperate with the journal by providing relevant data, explanations, or clarifications needed to resolve post-publication issues.

Ownership & Management

This journal is published by Universitas Sebelas Maret. The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, ethical publishing, transparency, and operational sustainability in accordance with international best practices in scholarly publishing.

This journal upholds full editorial independence. All editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, including originality, scientific quality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with publication ethics. Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team without interference from the publisher or external parties.