Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Indigenous is peer-reviewed scientifc journal in psychology.  All empirical based studies are welcome to published, especially with topics related to indigenous and islamic values in Indonesia.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Psikologi Islami

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Each article will be reviewed by 1 reviewer. Journal managers ensure that process will be held as "double-blind review". The author does not know who the reviewer and vice versa. Acceptance status will consider the reviewer comments. The review will be done maximum two weeks after the article is accepted by reviewer.

 

Publication Frequency

Indigenous published twice in a year (Mei and November)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal 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.

 

Publication Ethics

 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 

This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi,including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher.

 

This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

A. Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

 

Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologipublishes articles in Psychology and other related disciplines which focus on the finding of indigenous research in Indonesia.

 

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi (Journal of Development Economic) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the society.

 

Department of Psychology of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta as publisher of Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi (Journal Of Development Economic)takes its duties of guardianship all stages of 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. Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

 

B. Duties of authors

 

1. Reporting standards

 

Authors of reports of original research shouldpresent an accurate account of the workperformed as well as an objective discussion ofits significance. Underlying data should berepresented accurately in the paper. A papershould contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Reviewand professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.

 

2. Data access and retention

 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data inconnection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 

3. Originality and plagiarism

 

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

4. 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 behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal apreviously published paper.

 

5. Acknowledgement of sources

 

Proper acknowledgment of the work of othersmust always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential indetermining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as inconversation, corres-pondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not beused without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

 

6. Authorship of the paper

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

 

7. Hazards and human or animal subjects

 

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

 

8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants orother funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

 

9. Fundamental errors in publishedworks

 

When an author discovers a significant error orinaccuracy in his/her own published work, it isthe author's obligation to promptly notify thejournal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

C. Duties of editors

 

1. Publication decisions

 

 The editor of a peer-reviewed journal isresponsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsoredjournals). The validation of the work in questionand its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editormay 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

 

2. Fair play

 

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

 

3. Confidentiality

 

The editor and any editorial staff must notdisclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent ofthe author. Privileged information or idea sobtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should aska co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review andconsider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non peer reviewed sections of their journal should beclearly identified.

 

D. Duties of Reviewers

 

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

 

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

 

2. Promptness

 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified toreview the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

3. Confidentiality

 

Any manuscripts received for review must betreated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except asauthorized by the editor.

 

4. Standards of objectivity

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

5. 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. Are viewer should also call to the editor's attentionany substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

6. Disclosure and conflict of interest

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent ofthe author. Privileged information or idea sobtained 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 do the papers.

 

 

 

                                                                                                       Editor in Chief

 

 

 

Note

 

The submission must not have been previously published, nor should it be under consideration for publication else where. We also have a strict policy against plagiarism. The plagiarism is checked through two methods: reviewer check and plagiarism prevention tool.

 

Source

 

Recommended by Elsevier and COPE's BestPractice Guidelines for Journal Editors