Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal REKSA memuat "original articles" dan artikel tersebut belum dimuat atau diproses di jurnal lain.

Sektor Privat:

  • Akuntansi Keuangan dan Pasar Modal
  • Akuntansi Manajemen dan Keperilakuan
  • Sistem Informasi Akuntansi
  • Pengauditan
  • Etika Profesi
  • Perpajakan
  • Akuntansi dan Pengauditan Syariah
  • Pendidikan Akuntansi
  • Corporate Governance
  • Sustainability

Sektor Publik:

  • Akuntansi Keuangan Organisasi Publik
  • Akuntansi Manajemen dan Penganggaran
  • Sistem Informasi dan e-Government
  • Auditing dan Pengukuran Kinerja
  • Good Public Governance 
  • Sustainability

Sektor UMKM:

  • Akuntansi Keuangan UMKM
  • Akuntansi Syariah UMKM
  • Akuntansi Manajemen dan Penganggaran UMKM
  • Sistem Informasi UMKM
  • Auditing dan Pengukuran Kinerja UMKM
  • Good Governance 
  • Sustainability

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Jurnal REKSA: Rekayasa Keuangan, Syariah, dan Audit applies double-blind peer review process for each manuscript which involves editors and 1 (one) reviewer. Decision of article to be published in the journal considers several factors such as relevance of the article and its contribution to the development of accounting practices and accounting profession as well as compliance to the requirement of a published article. Editors and reviewers provide evaluation and constructive suggestions for the author.

Review process in Jurnal REKSA: Rekayasa keuangan, Syariah, dan Audit consists of following stages, in which editor will provide decision on each stage.

  1.  Initial review by editor
  2.  Double-blind peer review process by 1 (one) reviewer
  3.  Final review by editor

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal REKSA: Rekayasa keuangan, Syariah, dan Audit is a peer-reviewed journal published by Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan twice a year (March and September).

 

Open Access Policy

This journal is an open access journal which provides immediate, worldwide, barrier-free access to the full text of all published articles without charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers have right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all articles in JURNAL REKSA.

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

Jurnal REKSA is a blind-reviewed journal published periodically twice a year (March and September). The journal publishes papers in the field of accounting and finance that give significant contribution to the development of accounting practices and accounting profession in Indonesia.

The publication of an article in a blind-reviewed journal is an essential part of the development of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Blind-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 journal editor, the reviewer, and the author.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR EDITORS

1.      Publication Decision

The editor of the Jurnal REKSA is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work and its contribution to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may 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 in making this decision.

2.      Objective Assessment

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without having discrimination to religious belief, ethnic origin, gender, or citizenship of the author.

3.      Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the editorial board, as appropriate.

4.      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 of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves 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 institutions connected to the papers.

5.      Cooperation in Investigations

The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS

1.      Contribution to Editorial Decision

Blind review conducted by the reviewer 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 reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor.

3.      Confidentiality

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

4.      Objectivity

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

5.      Completeness and Originality of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6.      Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained 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