Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Buletin Plasma Nutfah (BPN) is an open access scientific journal published by Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD), Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD), Ministry of Agriculture. BPN Accredited by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia (No. 21/E/KPTP/2018) for period of 2016-2020.


This peer-refereed journal covers the area of genetic resources including exploration, characterization, evaluation, conservation, diversity, traditional knowledge, management and policy / regulation related to genetic resources: plants, animals, fishes, insects and microbes which has never been published in other Journal.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

A manuscript for publication in BPN is assessed by editors team and external reviewers. All peer review process in blind review which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. The editor in chief handles all correspondence with the author and makes the final decision whether the submitted paper can be accepted, rejected, or returned to the author for revision.

The editor in chief and section editor will evaluate the manuscripts submitted at the prequalification stage for the conformity of the further review process. The manuscript will be evaluated by two or three external evaluators selected by the editor in chief and editor team. External evaluators must examine the manuscript and return it to the editor in chief or section editor as soon as possible with their recommendations which this process usually takes 2 weeks.  If one of the external evaluators recommends rejection, the editor in chief will ask for the third external evaluator / additional evaluator or section editor to determine the acceptance or rejection of the paper.

Papers that need to be revised will be returned to the author, and the author must return the revised text to the editor-in-chief through BPN online submission system.  The editor in chief sends the revised manuscripts to the author to the section editor to check whether the revised text has been as suggested by the external evaluator.  The section editor can provide recommendations to the editor in chief that the manuscript must be returned to the author, accepted, or rejected within 2 weeks. After receipt by the section editor, the manuscript is forwarded to the technical editor of grammar and layout for the board editor meeting. The editor in chief will send a letter of acceptance and notify the attached publication by reprinting the manuscript to the author.

There are three steps of the revision process by the author: 1) revision of the manuscript to accommodate external evaluator's suggestions within 2-4 weeks; 2) revisions to accommodate section editor's suggestions within 2-4 weeks (if any); and 3) revisions to accommodate the editor's board's decision recommendations within 1 week (if any). Manuscripts that exceed the revised time limit will be drawn by the author. The author can request an extension to the editor's board before the revision ends. The time interval from the date of entry to the receipt of the manuscript for publication varies, depending on the time needed for review and revision.

 Generally, there are 3 reasons for a manuscript to be rejected by the editorial board: 1) Topic of the manuscript does not match the scope of the journal and may be more suitable for publication in other journals. 2) The substance of the manuscript does not meet BPN standards; data may be incomplete; the methodology used is incorrect; the substance is not new and there is no contribution to the development of existing knowledge; or there are no consistency between goals, research designs / methods, and conclusions. 3) Manuscripts are written not following the BPN guidelines for authors. Manuscripts like this might be rejected without a review process. The manuscript can also be rejected after the review process if the author does not revise the manuscript as suggested by the external evaluator and the board of editor, or also does not provide a response / refutation to the evaluator's suggestions. 

 If the manuscript is rejected, the author will be informed by the editor in chief with a statement and the reasons for the rejection. The author can appeal to the editor in chief if the assessment process is declared unfair proven by presenting evidence and strong reasons. The editor in chief will review the reasons with the section editor responsible for the manuscript, and then decide on the acceptance or rejection of the appeal. 

Reprint of all manuscripts will be given to the correspondent writer. Reprints must be read carefully, checked for typing errors, and corrections can be returned immediately. The author who submits the manuscript must understand and agree that the copyright of the manuscript published is held by the BPN. The statement to release copyright to the BPN is stated in the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Copyright includes exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and sell every part of journal articles in all forms and media. Reproduction of each part of this journal, storage in the database and transmission in the form or other media can be done only with written permission from the BPN

 

Publication Frequency

BPN is published in one volume of two issues per year, 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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

BPN is a journal that aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers focused on genetic resources and related topics that have never been published in any language, nor are they being reviewed for publication anywhere. This following statement describes the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers. This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors must present reports accurately from the original research conducted and discuss the purpose of the meaning. The researcher must present the results of the study honestly and without fabrication, forgery or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript must contain sufficient details and references to allow others to copy the work. Inaccurate fraud or intentional reports are unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow the guidelines for submitting journals.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Manuscripts do not have to be submitted together with more than one publication unless the editor has agreed to submit together the publication. Previously relevant work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors themselves, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature must be quoted completely and precisely. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers will appear in quotation marks with the right quotes. 
  3. Multiple, Redundancy, or Concurrency Publications: Authors may not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. It is expected that the author will not publish the same manuscript into more than a journal. Sending the same manuscript to more than one journal is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Some publications arising from a single research must be referenced and primary publications. 
  4. Source Recognition: The author must acknowledge all data sources used in the study and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the study reported. Appropriate recognition of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Writings: Authors of research publications must accurately contribute individuals to research. Authorship must be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the research reported. Other people who have made significant contributions must be registered as co-authors. In cases where the main contributors are registered as temporary authors who are made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to research or publications are listed in the acknowledgment section. The author also ensures that all writers have seen and agreed to the version submitted by the manuscript and their entry as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must express clearly in their text any substantive financial conflicts or interests that may be interpreted to influence the results or interpretation of their text. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors at Work Published: If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or repair the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

 

Every accepted manuscript should be accompanied by "Ethical Statement" prior to the article publication.

 

References Management

Every submitted manuscript must use reference management software such as Mendeley.

 

Article Processing Charges

Manuscripts submission, reviews, edits, publishing, maintenance, archiving, and access will not be charged and available for FREE for all contents

 

Acreditation Certificate