Editorial Process
Journal Information
Editorial Process
Journal of Aquatic Biology and Ecology (JABE)
The Journal of Aquatic Biology and Ecology (JABE) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity, transparency, and fairness in its editorial and peer review procedures. All submitted manuscripts undergo a structured and rigorous evaluation process to ensure quality, originality, and ethical compliance.
Initial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial technical and editorial screening conducted by the Managing Editor. This preliminary assessment evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope, complies with formatting and submission requirements, and meets basic standards of academic quality. During this stage, the manuscript is also screened using plagiarism detection software to assess similarity with previously published literature. Submissions that demonstrate excessive textual overlap, formatting deficiencies, ethical concerns, or clear misalignment with the journal’s scope may be rejected without external review. In some cases, authors may be invited to revise and resubmit if deficiencies are minor and correctable.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an Academic Editor. In most cases, this role is undertaken by the Editor-in-Chief. However, depending on subject expertise and workload considerations, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a member of the Editorial Board, a Guest Editor (for special issues), or an external expert in the relevant field to serve as Academic Editor. All assigned editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to handling the manuscript.
The Academic Editor conducts a preliminary scientific evaluation of the submission, assessing its novelty, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and overall contribution to the field. If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable for peer review due to insufficient scientific quality, limited originality, or lack of relevance to the journal’s scope, it may be rejected at this stage without further processing. Manuscripts considered appropriate proceed to external peer review.
Peer Review
JABE employs a single-blind peer review model. Under this system, reviewers are aware of the identities of the authors, while reviewer identities remain confidential. This approach balances transparency with reviewer protection and encourages objective and constructive evaluation.
Following the initial editorial assessment, the Academic Editor invites qualified experts in the relevant field to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. Detailed information regarding reviewer selection criteria is available in the journal’s Peer Review Policy.
Reviewers are generally expected to complete their evaluations within fourteen days of accepting the invitation. During the review process, reviewers assess the scientific validity, methodological robustness, originality, significance, clarity of presentation, statistical analysis, and ethical standards of the manuscript. Reviewers provide detailed comments for the authors and confidential remarks for the editors, along with an overall recommendation of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
A minimum of two independent review reports is typically obtained. These reports are carefully evaluated by the Academic Editor to ensure fairness, consistency, and scientific soundness before proceeding to an editorial recommendation.
Special Issue submissions are subject to the same rigorous peer review standards as regular manuscripts. All invited and unsolicited Special Issue manuscripts undergo full peer review, except for certain editorials. The Editor-in-Chief maintains overall responsibility for quality control of Special Issue content and supervises Guest Editors to ensure compliance with journal standards.
Editorial Decision
After all reviewer reports are received, the Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments and the journal’s standards. Based on this comprehensive assessment, the Academic Editor makes one of the following recommendations:
Acceptance indicates that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards and will proceed to production with minimal or no further modification.
Revision (minor or major) requires the authors to address specific reviewer and editorial comments. Authors must provide a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Upon resubmission, the Academic Editor evaluates the revised manuscript and determines whether further revision, additional external review, acceptance, or rejection is appropriate.
Rejection indicates that the manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific or editorial standards and will not be considered further.
If the Academic Editor is not the Editor-in-Chief, recommendations for acceptance or rejection are subject to final review and confirmation by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the adequacy of the peer review process, the thoroughness of editorial comments, the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, and its contribution to the field before issuing a final decision.
In certain circumstances, provisional decisions may be reassessed if significant concerns arise regarding review quality, ethical issues, or scientific integrity. Manuscripts may undergo additional review or revision if necessary. In rare cases, a provisional acceptance may be overturned if substantial issues are identified during final evaluation.
Post-Acceptance and Production
Once a manuscript is formally accepted, it enters the production phase. This process includes professional language editing, copyediting, formatting, typesetting, and proof preparation. Authors will receive proofs for review and must carefully check them for accuracy. Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage.
After final approval, the article is published online and made immediately available under the journal’s open access policy.
Appeals and Complaints
JABE recognizes the right of authors to appeal editorial decisions. Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected based on a misunderstanding, procedural error, or factual inaccuracy may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals must provide a clear, detailed justification supported by scientific evidence.
Complaints regarding the editorial process, peer review conduct, or publication ethics are taken seriously and handled confidentially. All complaints are reviewed by the responsible editor. If a complaint involves the handling editor, it will be escalated to the publisher for independent evaluation.
In matters concerning publication ethics, the journal follows the guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All investigations are conducted objectively and transparently.
For appeals or complaints, authors may contact:
editor@researchfloor.org