Editorial Independence

The editorial team evaluates manuscripts on scholarly merit, relevance to biosemiotics, and methodological rigor. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial considerations and are made to advance the quality of the research record. We welcome interdisciplinary work that clarifies meaning making in living systems and expands theoretical or empirical understanding.

Editors apply consistent criteria across regular and special issue submissions and are expected to document decision rationales. When additional expertise is required, the editorial office may consult advisors to ensure that complex theoretical or methodological questions are evaluated fairly.

Peer Review Standards

All research submissions undergo peer review by subject experts. Reviewers assess originality, theoretical contribution, methodological soundness, and clarity of presentation. Editors may reject submissions that fall outside scope or fail to meet baseline quality before external review.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers may not share, cite, or use unpublished findings for personal advantage. Reports should be respectful, evidence based, and aimed at improving the scholarly record. Editors monitor for bias and may replace reviewers when conflicts or unprofessional conduct arise.

Authorship And Contributions

All listed authors must have made a meaningful contribution to the work and approve the final submission. We encourage clear author contribution statements to clarify responsibilities across conceptualization, analysis, and writing. Disputes about authorship must be resolved before review can proceed.

Ethics And Compliance

Studies involving human participants or animal subjects must include ethics approvals, consent statements, and compliance details. When research involves sensitive cultural knowledge or community data, authors should describe governance and permissions. We will request documentation when required.

Conflicts Of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial or personal relationships that could influence judgment. Editors will manage conflicts through reviewer selection or reassignment to ensure an unbiased review process. Transparency protects the credibility of the journal and the research community.

Research Misconduct

Allegations of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or image manipulation are investigated by the editorial office. We may request raw data, ethics approvals, or institutional statements to verify concerns. Decisions follow documented evidence and may include rejection, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions.

Data And Reproducibility

JBSR encourages data availability statements and deposition in trusted repositories. Where data cannot be shared openly, authors must explain the restrictions and describe how qualified researchers can request access. Clear documentation of methods and materials is essential to support verification and reuse.

Citation And Attribution Ethics

References should be relevant and balanced, avoiding coercive or inappropriate citation practices. Editors and reviewers must not request citations solely to increase metrics. Proper citation of primary sources strengthens scholarship and prevents misrepresentation of prior work.

Use Of AI Tools

Authors may use language or analysis tools responsibly, but they remain fully accountable for originality, accuracy, and ethical compliance. Any use that materially affects the manuscript should be disclosed. AI tools must not be listed as authors and should not compromise participant privacy or data security.

Corrections And Retractions

If errors are identified after publication, the editorial office will review the issue and determine appropriate action. Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are issued to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly record. Authors are expected to cooperate promptly during investigations.

Appeals And Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a clear rationale and supporting evidence. Appeals are assessed by senior editors or independent advisors when necessary. Complaints about editorial conduct are reviewed objectively and handled in a confidential manner.

Appeals should focus on substantive issues such as errors of fact, misunderstanding of methods, or overlooked evidence. Disagreement alone is not a sufficient basis for reversal.