Publication Ethic

Jurnal Inovatif Manajemen Pendidikan Islam (JIMPI)

is a blind-reviewed journal. We take duties of guardianship over all publishing process and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Department of Biro Perencanaan Kementerian Agama and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

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-reviewer­­­­­s and the publisher (Biro Perencanaan Kementerian Agama). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. AUTHOR'S CODE OF ETHICS

Author's code of ethics aims to give birth to an original work, not a plagiarized work.

In order to maintain the truth and the benefits and the meaning of information disseminated so as not to mislead the writer is expected to:

1. Write carefully, thoroughly, and precisely.
2. Responsible academically for his writing.
3. Benefit the user community.
4. uphold the rights, opinions or findings of others.
5. Be fully aware of non-infringement.

The author is said to violate the code of ethics when doing:

1. Falsification
2. Fabrication
3. Plagiarism

Data fabrication is to 'fabricate' data or create data that actually does not exist or more generally create fictitious data.

Falsification of data is can mean to change the data in accordance with the wishes, especially to fit the conclusion that 'wanted' taken from a study.

Plagiarism is taking words or sentences or texts of others without giving sufficient acknowledgment (in the citation).

If the authors do plagiarism then he/she is considered to commit an intentional 'persecution' because there is a forced way of taking words/ideas without the permission of the owner.

The classification of plagiarism can be made depending on various aspects of view:in terms of substance stolen,

1. From the point of intent,
2. In terms of volume/proportion
   1. Light plagiarism: <20%
   2. Medium plagiarism: 20-70%
   3. Severe plagiarism:> 70%
   4. From the pattern of theft, plagiarism can be done verbatim or can be sourced from various sources and with own words (mosaic).
   5. Based on the individual source of ideas, there is also known as Auto-plagiarism / self-plagiarism: If the work itself has been published before, then when we take the idea, it should include a reference or citation. Otherwise, this can be regarded as auto-plagiarism or self-plagiarism. This is feared because if intended or later used to add academic credit, it can be regarded as a serious violation of academic ethics.

Someone who does one of three violations of academic ethics (falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism) can be said to have moral defects, especially when viewed through the eyes of religion. Religious value denounces violations as part of dishonesty, theft or taking possession of others without rights.

1. WRITING ETHICS

This writing ethic is related to manners, rules, and writing order. Usefulness of authorship ethics is to prevent misunderstanding, which obscures the messages that the writer desires to express through his/her writings.

It is expected that the writing follows the rules of DIES.

Scientific literature must follow the scientific literature writings' rules and different from popular writing or other writings

Misunderstandings are often caused by:

1. Unsuitable punctuation placement
2. An inappropriate choice of vocabulary
3. Ineffective sentences
4. Inconsistent paragraphs
5. Writing is not easily digested

Posts should pay attention to:

1. The use of dots, commas, and other punctuation.
2. A series of sentences that are good and orderly, easy to read, easily understood by the reader.

The criteria of scientific writing should be:

1. Objective: based on factual conditions,
2. Up to date: writing is the development of cutting-edge science,
3. Rational: serves as a vehicle for the delivery of mutual criticism,
4. Reserved: not overclaiming, honest, straightforward, and not personally motivated,
5. Effective and Efficient: writing is a high-powered communication medium.
6. EDITORS' ETHICS
7. The decision of publication; editors should ensure a thorough, transparent, objective, fair and prudent review of the text. It becomes the basis of the editor in making a decision on a script, rejected or accepted. In this case, the editorial board acts as a screening team.
8. Publication information; editors should ensure that scriptwriting guidelines for authors and other interested parties can be accessed and read clearly, both printed and electronic.
9. The sharing of peer-reviewed manuscripts; editors should make sure reviewers and manuscripts for review, as well as inform the provisions and process of reviewing the manuscript clearly to reviewers.
10. Objectivity and neutrality; editors should be objective, impartial, and honest in editing the manuscript, regardless of gender, the business side, ethnicity, religion, race, inter-group, and author's citizenship.
11. Confidentiality; editors should keep every information well, especially with regard to the author's privacy and distribution of the manuscript.
12. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; editors should understand the ethics of scientific publications above to avoid any conflict of interest with others so that the process of text publishing runs smoothly and safely. 

 

1. D. REVIEWER ETHICS 
2. Objectivity and neutrality; the reviewer must be honest, objective, unbiased, independent, and only in favor of scientific truth. The process of reviewing the manuscript is done professionally regardless of sex, business side, tribe, religion, race, inter-group, and author's citizenship.
3. Clarity of reference sources; the reviewer should ensure that the reference resource/quotation is appropriate and credible (accountable). If errors or irregularities are found in the reference source/quotation writing, the reviewer should promptly inform the editor to be repaired by the author according to the reviewer's note.
4. Peer-reviewed effectiveness; the reviewer should respond to the manuscript submitted by the editor and work in accordance with the specified peer-review period (maximum 2 weeks). If additional time is required in the review the manuscript should promptly report (confirm) to the editorial secretariat.
5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; the reviewer should understand the ethical publications above to avoid any conflict of interest with others, so the process of publishing the manuscript runs smoothly and safely.

 

1. ETHICS OF JOURNAL MANAGEMENT
2. Decision-making; the manager of the journal / editorial board should describe the mission and objectives of the organization, especially those relating to the determination of policy and decision of journal publishing without any particular interest.
3. Freedom; journal managers should give the reviewers and editors the freedom to create a comfortable working atmosphere and respect the privacy of the author.
4. Warranties and promotions; journal managers must guarantee and protect intellectual property rights (copyright), as well as transparent in managing funds received by third parties. In addition, journal organizers should publish and promote publication results to the public by providing assurance of usefulness in the use of the manuscript.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest; journal managers must understand the ethics of scientific publications above to avoid any conflict of interest with other parties, so the process of publishing the manuscript runs smoothly and safely.