JURNAL IPDA
Institut Pendidikan Guru Kampus Darulaman
ETHICAL STATEMENT
This writing and publication ethics are for the IPDA Journal published by the Institute of Teacher Education of the Campus Darulaman. These ethics statement is adopted and adheres to the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE - Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Conduct for Journal Publishers), which include a code of ethics for manuscript writers, chief of editors, editors and reviewers.
PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
Journal IPDA is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Journal IPDA for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review at Journal IPDA proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal via email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by Journal IPDA Journal editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with the Journal focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be an appropriate reviewer (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process at Journal IPDA including Arts & Humanities (History, Languages & linguistics, Literature, Philosophy, Religion, Visual arts), Social Sciences (Archaeology, Cultural and ethnic studies, Education & educational research, Gender studies, Geography, Media & communication, Psychology, Sociology), and Sciences (Agricultural sciences, Biological sciences, Chemistry, Environmental science, life sciences, Mathematics & statistics, Physics, Sports Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Computer sciences) that involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of Social Science who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity. The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.
5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer, when he or she declines to review.
6. Review is Conducted
The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.
8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments is sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.
After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.
If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. Leveraging the feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make the final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 2 to 4 weeks. The category of decisions includes, The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHOR
• The originality of the submitted manuscript.
• Responsible for all information and weaknesses (if any) in work submitted for publication in this journal.
• Do not submit papers that have been published in other journals.
• Do not submit manuscripts that are being evaluated by other journals.
• Allowed to publish their work in other journals after receiving an official rejection from IPDA journal or if the author officially withdraws their work from being published by this journal.
• Inform the Chief editor or the publisher if there are inaccuracies data in their published work so that corrections or withdrawal of the manuscript can be made.
• Authors should disclose in their manuscript if there are any conflicts of interest and sources of financial support that may affect the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support (if any) for the research project in this produced manuscript should be informed.
• Authors may be required to provide raw data relevant to the manuscript submitted for editorial panel review and under what circumstances that they are willing to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.
• The list of authors (authorship) is limited to those who have made significant contributions to the manuscript's concept, design, execution, or writing. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If individuals or organizations helped or contributed substantively in various aspects, then their names should be listed in the appreciation section at the end of the manuscript before the reference section.