Focus and Scope

Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) publishes original research articles, opinion essays, case reports, short communications, and critical reviews on all aspects of the marine environment. JoMS publishes scientific articles across the extensive spectrum of the marine sciences, including:

• Oceanography
• Marine biotechnology
• Marine biodiversity and living resources
• Marine geographic information system and remote sensing
• Marine geology
• Marine pollution
• Marine fisheries
• Mariculture
• Marine genomic
• Marine policy and law
• Marine management and conservation
• Marine technology
• Marine climatology
• Marine paleontology
• Coastal and estuarine dynamic
• Marine socio-economic
• Marine modelling
• Global ocean change
• Related topics constitute the key elements of papers
• Integrated studies that link gaps between marine science disciplines

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) is dedicated to maintaining high standards of academic excellence through a meticulous and transparent peer review process. This policy outlines the detailed procedures that guide the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts to ensure fairness, integrity, and scholarly rigor.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

• Submission Acknowledgment: Upon submission, the editorial office acknowledges receipt of the manuscript. The manuscript is then assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor for initial assessment. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review.
• Scope and Relevance Check: The editor reviews the manuscript to determine if it fits within the journal’s scope, which includes topics relevant to marine sciences and technologies, and meets basic quality standards, such as originality, research quality, and adherence to the journal’s submission guidelines.
• Technical Compliance: Manuscripts are also checked for technical compliance, including formatting, completeness, and adherence to ethical guidelines (e.g., disclosure of conflicts of interest and ethical approval for studies involving animals or humans).
• Desk Rejection: If the manuscript does not meet these basic criteria or is deemed unsuitable for the journal, it may be rejected at this stage without proceeding to peer review. The authors will be notified of this decision within one weeks of submission, with constructive feedback where possible.

2. Peer Review Process

• Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent out for peer review. The editor selects at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the specific area of research presented in the manuscript. Selection criteria include the reviewer’s expertise, prior experience in the subject, and the absence of conflicts of interest. 
• Invitation to Review: Selected reviewers are invited to review the manuscript. If a reviewer is unavailable or declines the invitation, alternative reviewers will be contacted. Reviewers who accept the invitation are provided with the manuscript and the journal’s review guidelines.
• Double-Blind Review: JoMS employs a double-blind review process to ensure impartiality. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript and their assessment with strict confidentiality.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several key criteria, including:
  • Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript present new findings or insights that advance the field of marine studies?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the research methods sound, and are the results valid and reliable?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, with a clear and logical presentation of ideas?
  • Significance: How significant are the findings to the broader field of marine studies?
  • Literature Review: Does the manuscript provide an adequate review of relevant literature and properly situate the research within the existing body of knowledge?
• Review Timeline: Reviewers are typically given 2-3 weeks to complete their evaluation and submit their reports. If additional time is needed, reviewers can request an extension, which the editor may grant.

3. Editorial Decision

• Review Evaluation: Upon receiving the reviews, the editor evaluates the feedback provided by the reviewers. The editor may also consider their own assessment of the manuscript, particularly if the reviewer's feedback is mixed.
• Decision Categories: Based on the reviews, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
  • Accept without Revisions: The manuscript is accepted as it is, with no further changes required.
  • Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires minor changes (e.g., clarification of certain points, minor corrections) before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revisions Required: The manuscript has potential but requires significant changes (e.g., additional experiments, major restructuring) before it can be reconsidered.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JoMS, either due to fundamental flaws, lack of originality, or because it does not meet the journal’s standards.
• Communicating the Decision: The decision, along with the reviewers’ comments and any specific instructions for revisions, is communicated to the corresponding author. Authors receiving a decision of “Minor Revisions” or “Major Revisions” are given a specified period (typically 4-6 weeks) to submit their revised manuscript.

4. Revision and Re-Review Process

• Resubmission of Revised Manuscript: Authors who have been asked to revise their manuscript must address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version along with a detailed response to the reviewers, outlining how each comment was addressed or explaining why certain suggestions were not incorporated.
• Re-review: The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or, in some cases, to new reviewers if the revisions are extensive or if the original reviewers are unavailable. The reviewers will assess whether the authors have adequately addressed their comments and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.
• Final Decision: After considering the reviewers’ feedback on the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on acceptance. This decision is then communicated to the authors. If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to the copy-editing and production stages.

5. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

• Confidentiality: All manuscripts, reviews, and correspondence related to the review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share or discuss the content of the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence their judgment. If a conflict of interest is identified, the individual must recuse themselves from the review process.
• Ethical Standards: JoMS is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in publishing. Manuscripts suspected of ethical breaches, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or inappropriate authorship, will be investigated. If misconduct is confirmed, the manuscript will be rejected, and appropriate actions will be taken, including notifying the authors’ institutions.

6. Appeals and Reviewer Recognition

• Appeal Process: If authors believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly or if they have concerns about the review process, they may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should include a detailed explanation of the authors' concerns and any supporting evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be made.
• Reviewer Recognition: JoMS recognizes the critical contributions of its reviewers. Reviewers are acknowledged annually, and those who consistently provide high-quality reviews may be considered for editorial roles within the journal.

Open Access Policy

Journal of Marine Studies 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. At the point of publication, all articles from JoMS are immediately and permanently accessible online free of charge. JoMS articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium. Authors and original sources are credited.

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...

Plagiarism Screening

For every manuscript submitted to the Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS), the initial stages of the manuscript will be checked for plagiarism screening using plagiarism checker software by an editor. The level of tolerance of similarity should be lower than 15 percent, and If more than the level of similarity, the editor will reject submitted articles.

References Management

Each manuscript submitted to the Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) should use references management software. e.g., EndNote, Mendeley, Citavi, or Zotero, etc., to make it easier to set the library format requested by JoMS. The library format (citation format) for JoMS is in the latest version of the APA Citation Style. The submitted manuscript that does not use the latest version of the APA Citation Style will be rejected in the initial selection process.

Ethics

Publication Ethics

Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) is a journal that aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research articles, opinion essays, case reports, short communications, and critical reviews focused on marine sciences, as well as related topics that have neither been published elsewhere in any language nor are under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

• Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: The author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
• Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given.
• Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.
• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 Duties of Editor

• Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
• 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. 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.
• Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc., of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
• Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented and consent for publication where applicable.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
• Standards of Objectivity: The review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively, and the reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
• 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
• Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete a review of the manuscript within the stipulated time, then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.

Ethics for Using Animals or Life Forms in Research

As authors submitting research involving animals or living organisms, you are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards in the design, conduct, and reporting of your research. The following guidelines outline the ethical considerations that must be followed to ensure the welfare of the animals and the integrity of the research:

• Compliance with laws and regulations: All research involving animals or life forms must comply with relevant local, national, and international laws and regulations. Authors should be familiar with and follow the guidelines set forth by regulatory bodies in their countries.
• Ethical approval: Prior to commencing any research involving animals or living organisms, authors must obtain appropriate ethical approval from an ethical review board. Documentation of ethical approval should be provided upon submission of the manuscript.
• Justification for animal use: Authors must provide a clear justification for the use of animals or life forms in their research, including the scientific necessity of the study and the expected benefits. Studies involving animal research should aim to minimize harm and discomfort to the animals and explore alternatives whenever possible.
• Humane treatment: All animals involved in research must be treated humanely and with respect. Researchers should ensure that housing, care, and handling conditions meet or exceed established standards. Procedures that may cause pain or distress should be minimized, and appropriate pain relief methods should be employed when necessary.
• Replacement, reduction, and refinement (3rs): Authors are encouraged to apply the principles of:
  • Replacement: use alternative methods or models instead of animals whenever possible.
  • Reduction: use the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve valid scientific results.
  • Refinement: modify procedures to minimize pain, suffering, or distress, and improve animal welfare.
• Reporting results: When reporting research results, authors should include a detailed account of how animals were used, including species, numbers, and care conditions. Any adverse events or issues related to animal welfare must be transparently reported in the manuscript.
• Transparency and reproducibility: Authors should ensure that all aspects of their research involving animals are conducted transparently and can be replicated. This includes providing detailed methodologies and protocols in the manuscript. Data sharing and availability of information regarding the animals used in the research are encouraged to promote reproducibility.
• Declaration of conflicts of interest: Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the use of animals in their research, including funding sources or affiliations that may influence the study's outcomes.

Correction and Retraction

The papers published in the Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) will be considered to be retracted in the publication if: (1). They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), (2). The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication), (3). It constitutes plagiarism (4). It reports unethical research.

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

Publication Frequency

Journal of Marine Studies (JoMS) publishes current research articles on marine science and technology with a frequency of three times (issues) a year: March, July, and November. JoMS publishes articles as soon as the final copy-edited version is approved by the authors and editors rather than waiting for a collection of articles for a specific issue.

Crossmark Policy

CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. Journal of Marine Studies recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document and may also provide additional publication record information about the document.

DOI: 10.29103/joms.crossmark

Indexing

Articles published in the Journal of Marine Studies are indexed and abstracted in the following databases and platforms:

• Google Scholar
• Scilit
• EuroPub
• Garuda
• BASE
• Crossref
• ROAD 
• Index Copernicus - ICI
• AquaDoc
• EZB Journal Library 
• Research Gate
• Dimensions
• WorldCat–OCLC
• Harvard Library
• Citefactor
• OUCI
• Asian Science Citation Index
• ZDB - Zeitschriftendatenbank
• ResearchBib
• Fatcat
• Library Hub
• Universiteit Leiden Library
• Scholar Archive
• Semantic Scholar