Our ethical statements are based on COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
In general, the Ethics of Perbanas Journal of Islamic Economics and Business refers to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Statement of code of ethics for scientific publications is a statement of code of ethics by all parties involved in the process of publishing scientific journals, namely managers, editors, review partners, and authors. Statement of the code of ethics for scientific publications by the Head of LIPI Regulation No. 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, basically the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications upholds ethical values in three publications, namely: Neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in the management of publications; Justice, which gives authorship rights to those who are entitled as writers; and Honesty, which is free from duplication, fabrication, forgery, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR EDITORS
1. Publication Decision The Editor of the Perbanas Journal of Islamic Economics and Business is responsible for deciding which articles will be accepted for publication. This decision is based on the validation of the article and the contribution of the article to the researchers and readers. In doing so, the Editor is guided by the policies of the editorial board and is subject to the laws that must be enforced in relation to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making decisions.
2. Purpose of Assessment Editors evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual content without discrimination of religion, ethnicity, race, gender, and others.
3. Confidentiality Editors and editorial staff may not publish any information about manuscripts that have been received to anyone, other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the editorial board.
4. Conflict of Interest The submitted article has not been published and may not be used for the personal benefit of the editor without written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through double blind reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors must refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the manuscript.
5. Cooperation in Investigation Editors must take responsive steps if there are ethical complaints about accepted manuscripts or published articles. The editor may contact the scriptwriter and consider the complaint. Editors can also communicate more with research-related institutions or institutions. Once the complaint has been resolved, matters such as revision of publications, withdrawals, or other records, should be considered.
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS
1. Contributions to the Decision Editor Blind peer review by reviewers assists editors in making decisions and can assist authors in improving articles through communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component of formal scientific communication (formal scientific communication) and scientific approaches.
2. Punctuality If the assigned reviewer feels qualified to conduct a manuscript review or is unable to conduct the review on time, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.
3. Confidentiality Every manuscript that has been accepted for review is a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.
4. Objective The review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers must express their opinions clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.
5. Completeness and Reference Authenticity Reviewers must identify reference sources that have not been cited by the authors. written statements/arguments must be accompanied by relevant quotations. The reviewer must notify the editor of any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published articles, to the best of the reviewer's knowledge.
6. Conflict of Interest Unpublished articles may not be used for the reviewer's personal research without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer reviewers must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer must reject the manuscript being reviewed if the reviewer has a conflict of interest caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company or institution related to the work.
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHOR
1. Writing Standard The author should present the discussion and importance of the research in the manuscript. Research data must be presented accurately. Articles must be sufficiently detailed with sufficient references to allow others to replicate the work. Articles containing inaccurate data constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
2. Research Data Access Authors may be required to provide raw data on paper for review and must be able to provide public access to such data where possible, and must be able to retain data for a reasonable period after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism in any form is an unethical behavior in the publication of scientific papers and is not acceptable. The author must ensure that all works are original, and if the author has quoted the work and/or words of others, the author must include appropriate citations. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as acknowledging other people's writings as your own, copying or rewriting substantial parts of other people's work without citing sources, and claiming the results of research conducted by others. Self-plagiarism or auto plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Auto plagiarism is quoting or using sentences from his own previously published work without citing the source.
4. Article Submission Terms Authors may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical behavior in publishing scientific papers and is unacceptable.
5. Reference Source Authors must include the source of reference for each article referenced in the manuscript. Information obtained personally, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without the written permission of the source of the information.
6. Authorship An author is a person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writing of the article. All parties who have contributed significantly to the writing of the article are listed as co-authors. Corresponding authors must ensure that all co-authors have been included in the manuscript, and all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.
7. Error in Publishing When the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in a published article, the author is responsible for notifying the journal editor, as well as working with the editor to retract or correct the text. If the editor gets information to a third party that a work contains a significant publication error, it is the author's responsibility to immediately withdraw or make corrections to the editor or provide evidence regarding the authenticity of the article.