Peer Review Policy

Bioresources and Environment (BioEnv) applies a single-blind peer review process to research articles. Under this model, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while reviewer identities remain confidential to the authors. The peer review process is designed to ensure the quality, originality, methodological rigor and research integrity of published articles.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor to determine whether they:

  • fall within the journal's aims and scope;
  • present original and potentially significant scholarly work;
  • meet applicable scientific, ethical and research integrity standards; and
  • comply with the journal's submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review. All submissions are screened for plagiarism and other forms of inappropriate textual overlap before peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary to obtain further specialist assessment or to address substantially differing reviewer recommendations.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • scientific quality and methodological rigor;
  • validity and reliability of the research findings;
  • adequacy of analysis and interpretation;
  • clarity and quality of presentation; and
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

The editor considers the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's overall scholarly quality when making an editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective, constructive and evidence-based assessments;
  • complete reviews within the requested timeframe;
  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process;
  • disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest;
  • decline a review if a conflict or other circumstance could compromise impartiality; and
  • alert the editor to significant concerns relating to research integrity, methodology or publication ethics.

Reviewers must not use, disclose or exploit unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal or professional advantage.

Any recommendation to cite the reviewer's own work, the work of particular authors or BioEnv articles must be based on genuine scholarly relevance and must not be intended primarily to increase citations.

4. Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's scholarly quality and its suitability for publication.

Possible decisions are:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Reviewer comments are anonymised before being communicated to authors to maintain reviewer confidentiality.

5. Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors should:

  • respond clearly and systematically to all reviewer comments;
  • identify the changes made in the revised manuscript; and
  • submit the revised manuscript and response to reviewers within the specified timeframe.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewer or assigned to additional reviewers when further assessment is considered necessary.

6. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

BioEnv maintains high standards of publication ethics and research integrity throughout the editorial and peer review process. Editors, reviewers and authors are required to maintain confidentiality and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

The journal addresses concerns relating to plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate manipulation of data or images and other forms of publication misconduct in accordance with the relevant principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable BioEnv policies.

7. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief with clear reasons and relevant supporting information.

Where practicable, an appeal will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly involved in the original decision. Appeals are assessed based on the stated grounds, the editorial record and relevant peer review information. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance of the manuscript.

The decision on an appeal is final.

8. Review Timeline

BioEnv aims to complete the initial peer review process within 6 to 8 weeks. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviewers and the extent of revisions required.

The journal monitors manuscript processing times to support timely and efficient editorial decision-making.