PUBLICATION ETHICS

TAUJIH: JURNAL PENDIDIKAN ISLAM is a peer-reviewed electronic journal. This statement clarifies the ethical conduct expected from all parties involved in the publication process of articles in this journal, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher, the Faculty of Tarbiyah, Universitas Al-Qur'an Ittifaqiah Indralaya. Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Accordingly, this journal adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

Several important points are outlined below; however, all parties are encouraged to refer to the three documents mentioned above for complete details.

Duties of Editors

Fairness and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, nationality, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Editorial and publication decisions are not influenced by government policies or any external institutions. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the handling of manuscripts will be kept confidential and will not be used for personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript. In such cases, another member of the editorial board will be assigned to manage the manuscript.

Publication Decisions

Editors ensure that all manuscripts submitted for publication consideration undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief/Regional Editor (Person in Charge) is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be published based on the validation of the work, its significance to researchers and readers, reviewers’ comments, and prevailing legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief/Regional Editor (Person in Charge) may consult with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

Editors, in cooperation with the publisher and/or associated institutions, will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or a published paper. Any reported unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if discovered years after publication. AP-SMART follows the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with suspected cases of misconduct. If, after investigation, the ethical concern is proven valid, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other relevant notice will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with authors, may also help authors improve their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. AP-SMART shares the view of many scholars that all researchers who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to participate fairly in peer review activities.

Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a timely review will not be possible should immediately notify the editor and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This confidentiality requirement also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument previously reported in earlier publications should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors, declare the conflict of interest, and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers may be contacted.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the explicit written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results obtained, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the study. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial opinions or perspective articles should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be requested to provide the raw data related to their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make such data publicly available whenever practicable. In any case, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably through institutional repositories or subject-based data repositories), provided that participant confidentiality can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not prevent their release.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that the works they submit are entirely original. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, these must be appropriately cited. Publications that have significantly influenced the nature of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism may take many forms, ranging from presenting another person’s paper as one’s own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another work without proper acknowledgment, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission/Publication

Papers describing substantially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit manuscripts that have already been published in another journal for consideration. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The publication of certain types of articles (such as clinical guidelines or translations) in more than one journal may sometimes be justified, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the original document. The primary publication must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the Manuscript

Only individuals who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors of the manuscript, as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content of the work:
(i) have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study;
(ii) have drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and
(iii) have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

All individuals who contributed significantly to the work reported in the manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship (such as technical assistance, writing and editing assistance, or general support) should not be listed as authors but should instead be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section after obtaining their written permission. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the manuscript and that no inappropriate co-authors are listed. The corresponding author must also verify that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript as early as possible, generally through a disclosure form submitted together with the manuscript and through a statement included in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include honoraria, educational grants, other funding sources, participation in speaker bureaus, memberships, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, other equity interests, paid expert testimony, patent licensing arrangements, as well as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs related to the subject matter of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the research should be disclosed, including grant numbers or other reference numbers where applicable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors should ensure that they properly acknowledge the work of others and cite publications that have significantly influenced the reported research. Information obtained privately (through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should also refrain from using information obtained while providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant proposals, unless they have obtained explicit written permission from the authors involved.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these hazards in the manuscript.

Confidential and anonymous treatment of human participant data is considered the standard practice in conducting research. Authors should respect the rights of institutions and individuals to privacy and should ensure confidentiality and anonymity. This may involve the use of anonymization or fictionalization approaches in reporting, and researchers should clearly explain how and why such approaches have been applied. However, in certain circumstances, participants or their guardians may willingly waive their rights to confidentiality and anonymity. Researchers should respect participants’ rights to be identified in publications if they so desire. This statement is based on the ethical guidance concerning privacy and data storage in the BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th Edition).

Peer Review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests regarding raw data, clarifications, evidence of ethical approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions. In cases where the initial decision is “revisions required,” authors should respond systematically and promptly to reviewers’ comments and revise and resubmit their manuscripts within the specified deadline.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are obliged to promptly notify the journal editors or publisher and cooperate in correcting the article through an erratum or retraction. If editors or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, the authors are obligated to promptly correct or retract the article or provide evidence to the journal editors regarding the correctness of the work.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of Unethical Publishing Behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editors, will take all necessary measures to clarify the situation and amend the article concerned. Such measures include the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in severe cases, retraction of the article. The publisher and editors will also take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of articles involving research misconduct and will neither encourage nor knowingly permit such misconduct to occur.

Access to Journal Content

The publisher is committed to ensuring the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and guarantees accessibility through collaboration with various organizations and the maintenance of digital journal archives.

Section A: Publication and Authorship

• All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process conducted by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• The review process follows a double-blind peer review system.
• Review criteria include relevance, validity, significance, originality, readability, and language quality.
• Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
• If authors are invited to revise and resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised manuscript will be accepted.
• Rejected manuscripts will not be reviewed again.
• Acceptance of manuscripts is subject to legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
• A single research work must not be published in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ Responsibilities

• Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are original works.
• Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been previously published.
• Authors must ensure that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
• Authors are required to participate in the peer review process.
• Authors are obliged to provide corrections or retractions when necessary.
• All listed authors must have made significant contributions to the research.
• Authors must ensure that all data presented in the manuscript are authentic and accurate.
• Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors.
• Authors must acknowledge all sources used in preparing the manuscript.
• Authors must report any errors discovered in their published work to the editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ Responsibilities

• Reviewers must keep all information related to manuscripts confidential.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively without personal criticism of the authors.
• Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and support them with appropriate arguments.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published works not cited by the authors.
• Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and other works known to them.
• Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest involving the authors, companies, or institutions concerned.

Section D: Editors’ Responsibilities

• Editors have full responsibility and authority to accept or reject manuscripts.
• Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication.
• Editors should consider the needs of both authors and readers in improving the publication.
• Editors should ensure the quality of published articles and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors should publish corrections or errata when necessary.
• Editors should have a clear understanding of research funding sources.
• Editorial decisions should be based solely on the importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope.
• Editors should not reverse previous editorial decisions without strong justification.
• Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
• Editors should ensure that all published research complies with internationally accepted ethical standards.
• Editors should only accept manuscripts when reasonably confident of their quality.
• Editors should act whenever misconduct is suspected, whether before or after publication.
• Editors should not reject manuscripts solely based on suspicion without evidence of misconduct.
• Editors should prevent conflicts of interest among staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.

Sources

• ELSEVIER: Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit
• COPE: Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors
• COPE: COPE’s New Code of Conduct
• COPE: Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors
• COPE: COPE Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors
• COPE: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• COPE: The Editorial Board Follows the Guidelines for Retracting Articles Issued by COPE
• COPE: Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
• COPE: COPE Retraction Guidelines