Publication Ethics

Above all, matters about journal publishing ethics refer to "Peraturan Kepala Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 Tentang Kode Etika Publikasi Ilmiah" (The Rules of Indonesian Institute of Sciences Regarding of Code of Scientific Publication Ethics) as it can be downloaded HERE.

Laa Maisyir has agreed to follow the ethical standards as determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Author(s) must obedient and pay attention to the authorship, plagiarism, duplicate (redundant) publication, fabrication of data, manipulation of citation, as well as ethical approval and Intellectual Property Rights. Laa Maisyir  takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use tools of plagiarism to check submissions against previous publications.

Every article published in the Laa Maisyir  was an original manuscript, not published double, does not contain elements of plagiarism and has been through a peer review process to ensure the quality of the articles in order to contribute to science in the field of economic. The editing team did not reveal any personal information about the manuscript to anyone other than the author, and upholds the objectivity in making decisions publishing articles.

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in our journal, including authors, editors, peer-reviewers and the publisher, namely the Department of Islamic Economics, Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, UIN Alauddin Makassar.

Publication and Authorship

1. All submitted articles are subject to a rigorous peer-review process by at least two reviewers who are experts in the specific article's field.
2. The review process is a blind peer review.
3. Factors considered in this review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. Possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revision, 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. Acceptance of papers is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Author Duties

1. Reporting Standards:  Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical or unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts should comply with the journal's submission guidelines.

2. Originality and Plagiarism:  Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. Manuscripts should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors' own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited wherever possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:  In general, authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that authors will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified and the primary publication should be cited.  Acknowledgement of Sources:  Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

3. Authorship of the Paper:  The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individual contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or publication are listed in the acknowledgements section. The author also ensures that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:  All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other 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.
4. Fundamental Errors in Published Works:  If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions:  Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Manuscript Review:  The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An essential part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is to uphold the principle of editorial independence and integrity. The editor is in a powerful position by making decisions about publication, making it extremely important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
3. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. The editor should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality:  Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2. Acknowledgement of Sources:  Reviewers should ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. Reviewers should notify the journal promptly if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however,
3. Standards of Objectivity:  Review of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions on the specific feedback required of them and, unless there is a good reason not to do so, Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which would only strengthen or extend the work.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises a potential conflict of interest.

5. Promptness: Reviewers should respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is impossible for him/her to complete the review of the manuscript within the allotted time then this information should be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.