Peer Review Process

All submissions to BIOLOVA undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality and validity of the published research. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The review process is conducted by experts in the relevant fields of study, who evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

1. Initial Evaluation
   Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board conducts an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and meets the publication conditions. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further review. Manuscripts with a similarity index of over 20% will also be rejected at this stage. The editorial office checks the article formatting, citation style, and adherence to author guidelines. If the manuscript does not meet the requirements, it will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes this evaluation, it will be sent for peer review.
2. Assignment of Reviewers
   The editorial board selects two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and have experience in the manuscript's research area. The reviewers will be blinded to the identity of the authors, and the authors will be blinded to the identity of the reviewers. The authors' names, acknowledgments, and any references to author contributions are removed from the manuscript and placed in a separate title page file. The editorial office will invite the selected reviewers, ensuring that they are affiliated with institutions different from those of the corresponding author. Reviewers will be invited based on their scientific expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria.
3. Review Process
   Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance to the field of Biology Education. Reviewers are usually given 4 to 6 weeks to complete their review. They will provide constructive feedback to help improve the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revisions. In case of significant discrepancies in reviewer comments, the editor may invite an additional reviewer for a final evaluation.
4. Decision
   The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the feedback from the reviewers. If reviewer comments differ substantially, the academic editor may seek a third reviewer’s opinion. The decision will be communicated to the author through the online system, along with any relevant comments from the reviewers. The typical time from submission to the first decision is 1 to 6 months, depending on the complexity of the review process.
5. Revision Process
   If the manuscript is accepted with revisions, the authors will be asked to revise it based on the reviewers' feedback and resubmit it for further review. Revisions should be accompanied by a revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter addressing each comment. Authors typically have 2 weeks for minor revisions and 4 to 6 weeks for major revisions. For major revisions, the manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers to ensure the revisions address the feedback adequately. For minor revisions, further review may not be required.
6. Publication
   Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors will be asked to submit the final version, which will be copyedited and formatted for publication in the journal.

This peer review process ensures that all manuscripts submitted to BIOLOVA are evaluated based on the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct, ensuring that only the highest quality research is published.