Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal ini memiliki fokus pada hasil pengabdian dan pemberdayaan pada masyarakat, baik itu pengabdian dosen maupun KKN oleh mahasiswa. Selanjutnya, cakupan jurnalnya bisa dari berbagai bidang keilmuan, yang dapat memberikan banyak manfaat buat masyarakat.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Seluruh artikel akan direview pertama kali oleh editor. Evaluasi ini meliputi fokus dan cakupan jurnal, tingkat similarity, dan template jurnal. Apabila tidak memenuhi ketentuan, artikel akan segera dikembalikan ke penulis. Program yang digunakan untuk cek similarity adalah iThenticate.

Setelah melewati proses review awal, artikel akan dikirim ke minimal 2 orang reviewer menggunakan kebijakan double blind review. Seluruh komentar dari reviewer akan dikirimkan ke corresponding email yang tercatat pada setiap artikel. Editor akan memberikan informasi ke penulis terkait hasil akhir penilaian paling lambat 60 hari setelah paper disubmit.

Keputusan akhir editor terkait artikel diputuskan berdasarkan hasil evaluasi akhir dari rapat tim editor jurnal. Selanjutnya, editor akan mengirimkan hasil akhir penilaian kepada penulis. Pengelola jurnal merekomendasikan penulis untuk menggunakan software referensi seperti Mendeley. Jurnal ini hanya menerima paper yang ditulis dalam bahasa Indonesia.

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Pemberdayaan: Publikasi Hasil Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat menerbitkan artikel 3 kali dalam setahun, yaitu pada bulan April, Agustus, dan Desember.

 

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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS 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. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher, namely Universitas Ahmad Dahlan.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review processes are blind peer review.
  3. The factors taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review 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 to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.