Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, derived primarily from COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in the journal, including the members of editorial board, editors, authors, and the publisher of the journal.
The publication of articles in the peer-reviewed Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected body of scientific knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the authors’ work and the institutions that support them. This statement on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement compromises the ethical guidelines for all parties involved in the act of publication: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the reader/society. Department of Comparative Madhab, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya, as the publisher, the editors, and members of the editorial board of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought, take duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and recognize their ethical responsibilities.
There will be no processing fee entitled to the submission and the publication of selected articles in Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought. The journal is also committed to ensure that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue have no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Department of Comparative Madhab, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya, as the co-publisher, and Editorial Board of the journal will assist in the communication with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought applies the COPE' forms and ethical guidelines for peer-reviewers. The journal performs double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Thus, full name(s) of the author(s) must be omitted from the manuscript to guarantee the blind review process. The author’s information and affiliation appear only in the submission form and the final production of the selected manuscript.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revise and re-submit their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
The submitted manuscript will be peer-reviewed by two reviewers, and the manuscript author(s) will immediately be informed about the results.
Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought also collaborates with reviewers through Publon online platform. Editors of the journal should take all necessary steps to enclose the identities of authors and reviewers.
Editors of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought are 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 journal's editorial board's policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding copyright infringement, plagiarism, and malpractice conduct. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making the publication decision.
Editors evaluate the content of articles based on their intellectual capacity regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the focus and scope of the journal.
Editors and editorial board members should ensure the review process and the selection of published works confirm the journal's ethical guideliness and take necessary steps to apply the blind-review process to every submission.
During the manuscript evaluation, editors and members of editorial board have to conceal identities of both the reviewers and the manuscript authors in order to ensure the double-blind review process. The editors facilitate anonymous correspondence between authors and reviewers. Following the editorial decision for publication acceptance, identities disclosure is considered appropriate.
All manuscript which are received by reviewer or partners should be treated as confidential documents. They may not be displayed or discussed with others unless permitted by the editor and the author.
Unpublished articles must not be used in the editors’ own research without the author's written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal gain.
Manuscript review process should be conducted objectively. Reviewers must provide their views clearly and followed by supporting arguments.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Reviewers should not consider reviewing the article with which they assume to have a conflict of interest, e.g., because of personal/professional relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.
The editorial board of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought consists of recognized experts in the fields within the focus and the journal's scope.
Members of the Editorial Board will be involved in reviewing the submitted manuscripts. The members advise the editors regarding the journal policy and scope, assist the editors in identifying the topics for special issues—for which the members may be the guest editors—, attract new authors and submissions, promote the journal to their colleagues and peers and help the editors in the decision making over issues such as plagiarism claims and disagreements between reviewers regarding manuscripts.
The editors of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought must take necessary steps to follow COPE's guidelines for journal editors that rules, among others, the editors' relations with authors, relations with reviewers, relations with editorial board members, relations with the publisher and ethical guideline for editorial processes and possible misconducts.
The editors of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought should take all reasonable steps to strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; to constantly improve the journal; to ensure the quality of the material they publish; to champion freedom of expression; to maintain the integrity of the academic record; to preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards; to encourage ethical research and publication; to always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Editors are willing to be held accountable for everything published in Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought and to actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members about ways of improving the qualities of the journal.
Editors must support initiatives designed to prevent research and publication misconduct, educate the authors about publication ethics, encourage responsible behaviour, and discourage misconduct.
Relations with readers
Editors have to ensure that all published articles had been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate), adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity.
Relations with authors
The editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and relevance to the journal's remit.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
Relations with reviewers
Editors provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle the submitted material as a confidential document.
Editors must ensure that the material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.
Editors should conceal identities of authors whose manuscripts are under peer-review process and guarantee the anonymity of the manuscript’s authors and reviewers
Relations with editorial board members
Editors provide guidelines on everything expected of the members and keep the existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Relations with the publisher
The editors guarantee the exercise of academic freedom, independence, and justice and have to make decisions on which articles to publish based on the quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the publisher.
Protecting individual data
Editors obey laws on confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of submission, reviewing process, and publication. Thus, editors have to take necessary steps to obtain written consent for publication from the authors or people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs).
Dealing with possible misconduct
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty applies to under review, published as well as unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Ensuring the integrity of the academic record and intellectual property
The editor has to promptly make a correction to errors and inaccurate or misleading statements.
Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with the Aqidah and Islamic Philosophy Study Program, Faculty of Ushuluddin and Philosophy, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya, as the publisher of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought, to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers assist the editors in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the authors, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any selected referee/reviewer 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 themselves from the review process.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editors.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism toward the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewer’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the focus and scope of the journal.
Acknowledgement of Sources
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. A reviewer should also call for 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.
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 reviewing manuscripts with which they feel to have conflicts of interest resulting from relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
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 details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and appropriately cited or quoted the works and/or words of others they used.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism comes in many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.
Authorship of the Manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to have an influence on the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants, other funding, and non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number, if any). Acknowledgment for source of funding of the article and essential contribution from institution and/or individuals to the production of the article should be clearly declared at the "Acknowledgment" section.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The Department of Comparative Madhab, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya, takes all necessary steps to oversee and promote the sustainability of the Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought. It works with the editors and members of the editorial board to create relevant journal policies and guidelines. It also provides and maintains the online platform for the journal and assists the publication and indexing of the journal articles.
The publisher ensures that journal editors, authors, and reviewers adopt best publishing policies and practices. It will review the journal policies regularly and update the policies when necessary.
The publisher will also work and collaborate with the editors and editorial board members to handle any potential cases of breaches of intellectual property and laws. If necessary, the publisher appoints an "ethics commission" to advise the editor and editorial board members on possible publication misconducts, potential violations of the journal's policies and guidelines, and intellectual property and laws.
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of published manuscripts and ensures the accessibility of the journal's contents.
The publisher takes efforts to enhance published works' visibility by maintaining dataset, archiving, abstracting, and indexing the published works.
The publisher is responsible for the journal's contents archiving. It utilizes the LOCKSS (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) 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.
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher, members of editorial board, the reviewers, ethics commission, and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct.
Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors and members of editorial board and ethics commission in necessary-, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought applies plagiarism-detection to each submitted manuscript. The journal uses Turnitin to track the level of similarities, and the author will be well-informed about the result of the similarities-checking. For further information on similarities and plagiarism, please check the journal's plagiarism notice.
This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the editorial board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher of Journal of Comparative Madhahib and Thought. The names and email addresses registered at the submission will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.