Focus and Scope

1. Animal Livestock Production
2. Nutrition and Feed
3. Technology of Animal Product
4. Socio-Economics of Animal Livestock
5. Reproduction and Breeding
6. Animal Livestock Environment
7. Animal Livestock Health
8. Animal Food Safety and Security.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

1. The review team for your journal should consist of researchers and practitioners who understand the field of your journal.
2. The journal submission process must go through OJS and register using a username and password.
3. The review process is carried out for a maximum of 4 weeks working hours.
4. If accepted, the author must make a statement that there is no conflict of interest.

Publication Frequency

JPL Trop diterbitkan setiap enam bulan sekali yaitu pada Maret dan September

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 Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers within the Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and Authorship 

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. The review process is blind peer review.
3. The factors that are taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. 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 must participate in the peer review process. 
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
5. 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.
6. 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

14. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
15. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
16. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
17. Editors should guarantee the papers' quality and the academic record's integrity.
18. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
19. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
20. Editors should base their decisions solely on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
21. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
22. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
23. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
24. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
25. 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.
26. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions. They should have proof of misconduct.
27. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

Screening for Plagiarism Policy

Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis has a policy of screening for plagiarism. We use the Anti-Plagiarism Software "Turnitin" to check the authenticity of the article.

Correction and Retraction

At Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis, we prioritize maintaining the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record of our content for all end users. Our policy on changes to articles after they have been published online is based on best practices in the academic publishing community. The authority of articles after publication is highly regarded. Adhering to this issue, Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis follows COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles.

An Erratum will be issued in the event of errors or omissions in an article. The Erratum is a statement by the original paper's authors that briefly describes any correction(s) resulting from errors or omissions. Any effects on the conclusions of the paper should be noted. The corrected article is not removed from the Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis website, but notice of Erratum is given. The Erratum is made freely available to all readers and is linked to the corrected article.

If there is clear evidence that the findings in an article are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error, if the results have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification, if the work is plagiarized, or if the position reports unethical research, a Retraction will be issued. A Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. To protect the integrity of the record, the retracted article is not removed from the Jurnal Peternakan Lingkungan Tropis website, but notice of retraction is given, is made freely available to all readers, and is linked to the retracted article. The authors can issue a retraction when they have discovered substantial scientific errors or by the Editors or Publisher in other cases. In all cases, the retraction indicates the reason for the action and who is responsible for the decision. If a retraction is made without the unanimous agreement of the authors, that is also noted. The Publisher may redact or remove an article in rare and extreme cases involving legal infringement. Bibliographic information about the article will be retained to ensure the integrity of the scientific record.

Suppose typographical or production errors (the Publisher's fault) affect the integrity of the article metadata (such as title, author list, or byline) or significantly impact the readers' ability to comprehend the article. In that case, a Publisher's Note will be issued. A Publisher's Note notifies readers that an article has been corrected after publication. The original article is removed and replaced with an updated version. Publisher's Notes are freely available to all readers. Minor errors that do not affect the integrity of the metadata or a reader's ability to understand an article and that do not involve a scientific error or omission will be corrected at the discretion of the Publisher. In such a case, the original article is removed and replaced with an updated version, and the correction date is noted on the corrected article. Authors should also note that an original piece can only be removed and replaced with a corrected version less than one year after the original publication date. Corrections to an article with a publication date older than a Publisher's Note will only document one year.