Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The focus and scope of Jurnal Penelitian Ekosistem Dipterokarpa are all of the results of the research that cover the environmental aspects and ecosystems of Dipterocarp forests, particularly in the areas of:

  1. Silviculture
  2. Environmental Services (Forest Value)
  3. Forest Biometrics
  4. Forest Product Processing
  5. Engineering and Forest Harvesting
  6. Non-Timber Forest Products
  7. Forest Protection
  8. Conservation of Forest Resources
  9. Social Forestry, Economics and Policy
  10. Forest Ecology and Forest Biomassa
  11. Microbiology and Biotechnology
  12. Pests and Forest Diseases
  13. Wood Anatomy
  14. Hydrology and Forest Soil Conservation
  15. Dendrology, Fitogeography and Tree Architecture
  16. Plant Physiology


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Each article / script entered into JPED will be reviewed at least by 2 (two) Reviewer Acknowledgement and 1 (one) editor.

The time required to conduct a maximum review of 2 weeks from Reviewer Acknowledgement and Editors.

The review is Blind Review


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.




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...


About The Journal

Jurnal Penelitian Ekosistem Dipterokarpa is published by Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Ekosistem Hutan Dipterokarpa.


Cost of Script Circulation

Articles that go to JPED are not subject to article processing fees. This includes, submit, review Mitra Bebestari, Editing, Publishing, Maintenance and Archiving as well as granting direct permissions for script files.


Copy Editing and Proofreading

All articles received by JPED will be the object of the Grammarly® enhanced writing program by the Editorial.


Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statements

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least a peer reviewer and two editors that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication.


Section B: Authors' responsibilities 

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  5. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  6. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  7. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  8. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  9. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.


 Section C: Reviewers' responsibilities 

  1. Reviewers have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article of the initial submission.
  2. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.  
  3. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  4. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Reviewers should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  6. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  7. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  8. Reviewers should not review 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.


Section D: Editors' responsibilities 

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.