01 Commitment and scope

This policy sets expectations for everyone participating in the publication of Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Mu'ashirah: Media Kajian Al-Qur'an dan Al-Hadits Multi Perspektif: authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff and the publisher. It applies to submissions, published work and concerns raised after publication. Its purpose is to support trustworthy scholarship and fair editorial treatment.

The journal uses COPE Core Practices as a framework for editorial assessment. A reference to COPE is not a statement of membership, certification or endorsement. Discipline-specific requirements and the journal’s more detailed policies must also be consulted.

02 Authors: accurate and accountable reporting

• Describe what was actually done, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and report important limitations.
• Check the accuracy of citations, quotations, calculations, tables and images before submission. Do not invent evidence or conceal changes that affect interpretation.
• Disclose related publications, preprints and overlapping submissions to the editor. Do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration here.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where needed. Notify the editor when a significant error is found, including after publication, and cooperate in resolving it.

03 Authorship and contributions

The author list must represent genuine scholarly contributions. Each author must approve the manuscript and accept responsibility for their contribution and for helping resolve questions about the work. Other assistance should be acknowledged with permission. Administrative position, funding alone or an agreement to purchase authorship does not establish authorship.

The corresponding author coordinates communication, but does not replace the responsibilities of other authors. Requests to add, remove or reorder names require reasons and documented agreement from affected contributors. Unresolved disputes may pause processing and require institutional assessment; editors do not adjudicate employment or ownership disputes.

04 Editors: independent decisions

Editors assess relevance, originality, soundness and ethical acceptability. Decisions must be reasoned and free from discrimination, personal advantage and commercial pressure. Payment, prestige or institutional relationships must not purchase acceptance.

The handling editor selects appropriate expertise, considers reviewer reports and author responses, and explains the decision. An editor with a relevant conflict must transfer handling to an independent editor. Editorial-board submissions and special issues require the same safeguards as other submissions. Confidential records must be accessible only to people with a legitimate role.

05 Reviewers: constructive and confidential assessment

Before accepting, reviewers should consider expertise, availability and competing interests. A report should identify strengths, limitations and necessary changes with reasons. It should distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions. Personal attacks and requests for irrelevant citations are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not share or use unpublished work for their own benefit. They should alert the editor privately to credible integrity concerns, without conducting an unauthorized investigation or contacting authors independently. If circumstances prevent a responsible review, they should inform the editor.

06 Publisher and journal management

The publisher supports editorial independence, appropriate training, secure records and continuity planning. Responsibilities for complaints, technical operations and editorial decisions should be clearly allocated. Published information about charges, access, ownership and preservation must match actual arrangements.

Commercial or institutional interests must be separated from decisions on individual manuscripts. The publisher assists with necessary notices and institutional correspondence without suppressing findings to protect reputation. Staff should communicate professionally and avoid retaliation against people who raise concerns in good faith.

07 Competing interests and funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. Relevant interests may be financial, professional or personal. Disclosure allows assessment; it does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Authors identify funding and material support, including the funder’s involvement in the research and publication decision. Editors decide whether disclosure, independent handling or recusal is needed. Interests discovered later should be reported so that the record and handling arrangements can be corrected where necessary.

08 Research ethics, consent and privacy

Where relevant, manuscripts must describe ethics approval, the approving body and consent procedures, or explain a justified exemption. Research involving people, sensitive records, vulnerable groups or animals requires safeguards appropriate to the discipline and applicable requirements. Authors must not invent an approval or obtain it retrospectively and present it as prior approval.

Consent to participate is not necessarily consent to publish identifiable information. Minimize identifying details and explain any restriction on disclosure. Editors may request supporting documentation through a confidential channel rather than requiring sensitive material to be made public.

09 Data, methods and reproducibility

Provide enough methodological detail for readers to evaluate the findings. State where supporting data, code or materials can be accessed, or why access is restricted. Confidentiality, consent and legitimate rights take precedence over unrestricted sharing.

Retain relevant research records and respond to reasonable requests for clarification. Describe exclusions, transformations and image adjustments that matter to interpretation. For registered studies or discipline-specific reporting requirements, supply the relevant registration and reporting information. An unavailable dataset must not be described as openly accessible.

10 Originality, citations and AI

Attribute borrowed words, ideas and materials, including substantial reuse of earlier work. Editorial assessment considers the context of overlap; a similarity score alone neither proves nor excludes plagiarism. References should support the manuscript, not manipulate metrics.

Human authors remain responsible when using AI assistance. Disclose substantive use according to the journal’s AI policy and verify outputs against evidence. AI must not fabricate sources or research observations. Editors and reviewers must protect confidential manuscripts and must not delegate scholarly judgment to an automated system.

11 Concerns, complaints and fair assessment

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern and provide available evidence. Confidential or anonymous reports are assessed on their substance. Allegations are not treated as established misconduct.

1. The editorial office records the concern and identifies an impartial person to assess it.
2. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and clarification or supporting records may be requested.
3. Where the question exceeds editorial authority, appropriate institutions or specialists may be consulted with proportionate disclosure.
4. The editor documents the assessment and communicates an appropriate outcome. A pending investigation is not evidence of guilt.

An appeal should identify a factual or procedural error, rather than only disagreement with a decision. Complaints about the handling editor must be referred to an independent contact through the journal’s complaints procedure. Delays and the next steps should be communicated without promising a fixed outcome.

12 Discussion and changes after publication

Readers may send substantive comments or evidence of error to the editorial office. Authors should be given an opportunity to respond where appropriate. Scientific disagreement alone is not a reason to remove a paper.

A correction addresses a material error when the work remains reliable. Serious unreliability may require retraction; unresolved substantial concerns may justify an expression of concern. Notices should explain the reason, identify the affected work and link to its record. Withdrawal before publication is distinct from retraction. Removal of published content is exceptional; changes must not silently rewrite the scholarly record.

13 Journal-specific provisions — retained content

Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Mu'ashirah is a peer-reviewed journal, available in print and online and published two times a year. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the editorial board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher.

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Mu'ashirah is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-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 author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.

Publisher of Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Mu'ashirah takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

PUBLICATION DECISIONS

The editor of the Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Mu'ashirah is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

FAIR PLAY

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

CONFIDENTIALITY

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

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT 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.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

CCONTRIBUTION TO EDITORIAL DECISIONS

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

PROMPTNESS

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

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.

STANDART OF OBJECTIVITY

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SOURCES

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, 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.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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 connected to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

REPORTING STANDARDS

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

ORIGINALITY AND PLAGIARISM

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

MULTIPLE, REDUNDANT, OR CONCURRENT PUBLICATION

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SOURCES

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PAPER

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN PUBLISHED WORKS

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.