Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Perikanan Universitas Gadjah Mada is published to promote a critical review of the various investigative issues of interest in the field of fisheries between the researchers, academics, students and the general public, as a medium for communication, dissemination and utilization of wider scientific activities. This journal gives readers the state of the art of theory and its applications in all aspects of fisheries. The topics are included but are not limited to:
  • Aquaculture
  • Fish Diseases
  • Utilization and Management of Fishery Resources
  • Fisheries Technology
  • Fisheries Biology
  • Fisheries Agribusiness
  • Extension and Institutional Development
  • Marine Science

 

Section Policies

 

Peer Review Process

All articles submitted to the editorial staff will undergo selection via the Initial Review process conducted by the Editorial Board. The papers will be submitted to the peer reviewer and will proceed to the subsequent selection via the Double Blind Peer Review Process. The papers will thereafter be returned to the writers for revision. These procedures need a maximum duration of one month. In each paper, peer reviewers will be evaluated based on significant and technical criteria. The peer reviewer collaborates with JPUGM, which comprises professionals in aquatic and fisheries science or related problems. They have expertise in the administration and production of esteemed journals disseminated nationally and internationally.

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Perikanan Universitas Gadjah Mada is published twice in a year. The latest issue is published in January-June and July-December. Call paper for each issued minimally have to be submitted six months prior to the issued time.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This publication offers instant open access to its material, based on the concept that providing free access to research fosters a broader worldwide exchange of information.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

Jurnal Perikanan Universitas Gadjah Mada (JPUGM) adheres to ethical standards guided by Elsevier policies and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publication are required to comply with principles concerning: authorship, originality and plagiarism, data access and retention, acknowledgment of sources, multiple and redundant publication, disclosure and conflicts of interest, hazards and human or animal subjects, reporting standards, ethical approval, artificial intelligence (AI), correcting of fundamental errors, and article withdrawal.

  1. Authorship: Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Transparency regarding individual author contributions is encouraged, for example, through a CRediT author statement. When authorship is attributed to a group, all listed authors must have made substantial contributions to: (i) the conception and design of the research, acquisition of the data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (ii) drafting or critically revising the manuscript; and (iii) final approval of the version to be submitted. Manuscript submission implies that all authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree to its manuscript submission to the journal. All authors are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and ethical integrity of the research.

  2. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors must ensure that their manuscripts are entirely original. Where the work or words of others are used, these must be appropriately cited or quoted with accepted scholarly standard. 

  3. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be requested to provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases. Author should also retain the data for a reasonable period after publication.

  4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in shaping the reported research.

  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

  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.

  7. 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 behavior and are unacceptable.

  8. Ethics approval: Experiments held on human and animals must obtain permission from the official agencies and does not violate the law. Human or animal-related experiments should be published in "Materials and Methods", then examined and got approved by professionals from the side of moral aspect. Research on human beings must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. Human details may be included only if they are essential for scientific purposes and the author(s) obtain written permission from the individual, parent or guardian. Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.

  9. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy: Artificial intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, DeepSeek) cannot be credited as authors under any circumstances. Authors may use AI tools to assist with language refinement or formatting, but not for generating scientific content, data, or references. Any use of AI must be clearly declared in the manuscript (e.g., in the Acknowledgements or a separate Declaration section). Human authors are fully responsible for all content, and any manuscript containing fabricated data or unverifiable references will be rejected or retracted. This policy aligns with the principles of COPE and major scientific publishers.

  10. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: Authors must not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

  11. Fundamental errors in published works: If the author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

  12. Article withdrawal Authors who discover an error in their published article must contact the journal as soon as possible using the contact details listed on the journal’s home page. In most cases, the corresponding author will be responsible for sharing the details of the error with the journal. The journal Editor or a designated representative (such as another member of the editorial team with appropriate subject matter expertise) will review the proposed correction, together with any accompanying data or information. They may send the proposed correction for further peer-review. The journal Editor will determine the appropriate mechanism to correct the article.

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 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. Handling Misconduct: The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication.
  6. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Peer Review Process: JPUGM employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objectivity, where both the reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the process. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal peer are 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.
  7. Accountability and Corrections: The editor is accountable for everything published in the journal and must be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Whenever it is recognized that a significant error or misleading statement has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

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 authorized 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. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that 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.
  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 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. Handling Misconduct: The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication.
  6. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Peer Review Process: JPUGM employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objectivity, where both the reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the process. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal peer are 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.
  7. Accountability and Corrections: The editor is accountable for everything published in the journal and must be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Whenever it is recognized that a significant error or misleading statement has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

The manuscript that is submitted to this journal will be screened for plagiarism using Aimos2, Grammarly and, Turnitin. 

 

 

Digital Archiving

This journal utilizes the  LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

 

 

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download using ALM Plugin, statistic will show on every article page. Visit link here

ex. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jfs/article/view/10350

 

Review Guidelines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is the good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full Review Process of Manuscript

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organisation?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.