Publication ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Ethics Statement referred by Istinbath (Journal of Islamic Law and Islamic Economic) based on the Lipi Head Rule Book is sourced from the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE).
1. Article standards
The author must present an accurate original article about the process of the work done and present an objective discussion. In the article, the data must be displayed accurately. The article should contain enough details and references for others to develop research. Intentional untrue or inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior.
2. Authenticity and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is fully original, and if the author has used someone else's work and/or words that have been appropriately cited or cited.
3. Double publication
An author should not publish a manuscript that descriptively describes the same research in more than one journal or other publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
4. Source Recognition
The author should always acknowledge the work that others have created. The author must cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the submitted article
5. About the Article Author
The names of the authors listed are restricted to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research. All persons who have made significant contributions must be listed as writers. When there are others who have participated in a particular substantive aspect of the research project, they must be recognized or listed as contributors. Authors who correspond with editors must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the article and that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the article and have approved its submission for publication.
6. Conflict of Interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial issues or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to affect the outcome or interpretation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
7. Fundamental errors in the published work
When an author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the manuscript.
An editor at all times evaluates the manuscript for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political flow of the authors.
Editors and any editorial staff are prohibited from providing any information about manuscripts sent to anyone other than the author, peer reviewer, board of editors, and other publishers.
3. Conflict of Interest
Unpublished material written in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions
Journal editors are responsible for determining which articles are published. Editors can seek input from the journal's editorial board and existing tools to address copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors and reviewers to make this decision.
5. Manuscript Review
Editors should ensure that each manuscript is evaluated by the editor in relation to originality. Editors should organize and use reviewers fairly and judiciously. Editors should describe the peer review process as information for the author and also indicate which parts of the journal were reviewed by the reviewer. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for articles deemed publishable by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions. Through communication between editors and authors, reviewers can also assist authors in improving articles.
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript must notify the editor and resign from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity
The review process must be done objectively. Personal criticism for the author is imprecise. Reviewers must express their views clearly and accompanied by supporting arguments.
Any manuscript accepted for review should be treated as a confidential document. They may not be shown or discussed with anyone else except those authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
New information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must work professionally and rule out conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any author, company, or institution associated with the article.
6. Source Recognition
The reviewer must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. Any statement that is a pre-published observation, drop, or argument must be accompanied by a relevant citation. A reviewer should also discuss with the editor the substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other articles already published.