Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Fish Protech (JFP) (Journal of Fisheries Processing Technology) adalah jurnal penelitian ilmiah yang bertujuan untuk memberikan informasi terkait hasil penelitian dan pengembangan dibidang Teknologi Hasil Perikanan. JFP menerbitkan artikel dalam lingkup aspek karakteristik bahan baku hasil perikanan, pengolahan dan pengembangan produk perikanan, mutu dan keamanan produk hasil perikanan, penanganan hasil perikanan, biokimia hasil perikanan, mikrobiologi dan bioteknologi hasil perikanan, serta penanganan dan pengolahan limbah hasil perikanan. Penulis dan pembaca adalah ilmuwan dan pakar dari sektor akademik maupun non akademik.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Fish Protech/Journal of Fisheries Processing Technology (JFP) mengakui bahwa proses peer review didedikasikan untuk memastikan diterbitkannya imu-ilmu yang bermutu. Jurnal ilmiah Jurnal Fish Protech/Journal of Fisheries Processing Technology (JFP) senantiasa berusaha meningkatkan standar kualitas.  Maka naskah ditinjau dan senatiasa berusaha mengikuti prosedur yang diuraikan sebagai berikut:  Evaluasi awal oleh Editor yang mengevaluasi naskah untuk memeriksa ruang lingkup dan keaslian makalah dengan perangkat lunak. Pada tahap ini, Editor dapat menolak naskah jika ditemukan ada kekurangan ilmiah yang serius dan berada di luar tujuan dan ruang lingkup JFP. Manuskrip yang memenuhi kriteria minimum diteruskan ke para ahli/reviewers untuk ditinjau. Batas waktu untuk tahap ini adalah sekitar 1 minggu setelah diterima. Peer Review JFP menggunakan single blind review, di mana mereka tanpa nama atau anonim bagi penulis selama proses berlangsung. Editor dapat membuat tinjauan Editorial (tanggal tenggat waktu untuk publikasi). Editor memilih Reviewer yang sesuai dengan manuskrip yang akan diulas sesuai dengan keahlian mereka. Editor menugaskan dua reviewers independen untuk mengevaluasi naskah, jika setelah 6 minggu tidak menemukan reviewers, maka editor dapat menjadi satu-satunya reviewer tunggal dan selanjutnya membuat keputusan untuk penerimaan naskah. Maka reviewer akan memperoleh file yang berisi Lembar Evaluasi yang mengevaluasi apakah naskah sesuai dan memiliki metodologis baik, mempunyai hasil yang disajikan dengan jelas dan mendukung kesimpulannya. Naskah akan dikirim kepada penulis bersama dengan rekomendasi yang dibuat oleh reviewer mencakup komentar atau ulasan oleh reviewer. Penulis memiliki waktu dua minggu untuk menjawab tanggapan komentar reviewer. Keputusan Editor adalah final Berdasarkan saran reviewers, Editor akan memberikan keputusan akhir tentang penerimaan atau penolakan artikel.


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

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Duties of Authors

  1. 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
    Proper acknowledgement 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Publication Decisions: 
    The editor board 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. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: 
    The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organise 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. The 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.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
  5. 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.
  6. Acknowledgement 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.