Publication Ethics

AL-ARKHABIIL: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat

INTRODUCTION

AL-ARKHABIIL: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat is fully committed to academic integrity and the highest standards of publication ethics in publishing research results and community service practices in the field of Islamic studies. This journal is published by the Research and Community Service Center (P3M) of Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam As-Sunnah, Deli Serdang, with a focus on disseminating knowledge that contributes to community empowerment based on Islamic values.

This publication ethics statement has been independently developed by the AL-ARKHABIIL editorial team. While we have taken into consideration universal principles of scientific publication ethics, including guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at https://publicationethics.org/, this statement has been specifically adapted to the context and needs of our journal within the Indonesian Islamic scholarly tradition. This demonstrates our journal's ownership and comprehensive understanding of ethical policies and processes governing scholarly publication.

Publisher Information:

1. PUBLISHER'S RESPONSIBILITIES

The Research and Community Service Center (P3M) of STAI As-Sunnah as the publisher has the following responsibilities:

1.1 Editorial Independence

  • Guaranteeing editorial decision independence from commercial, political, or specific institutional interests
  • Ensuring there is no intervention in the peer review process and publication decisions
  • Supporting editors in performing editorial duties without external pressure
  • Confirming that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions

1.2 Infrastructure Support

  • Providing a stable, accessible publication platform that meets international technical standards
  • Ensuring the availability of long-term digital archives through reliable preservation systems
  • Providing an efficient and transparent online manuscript management system
  • Maintaining website accuracy with clear information architecture and navigation system to ensure easy access to published content and all journal features

1.3 Policy Transparency

  • Openly publishing all editorial policies, publication fees (if any), and complaint handling procedures
  • Ensuring information about journal ownership and organizational structure is available to the public
  • Providing clear communication mechanisms among publishers, editors, authors, and readers
  • Maintaining bidirectional links: the journal website clearly links to the publisher website (https://assunnah.ac.id) and the publisher website clearly links to the journal website
  • Ensuring all website information is accurate and up to date

1.4 Handling Ethics Violations

  • Collaborating with editors in investigating suspected publication ethics violations
  • Supporting correction, clarification, retraction, or apology processes as needed
  • Protecting the integrity of the scientific record with timely corrective actions
  • Taking full responsibility for implementing corrective measures when ethics violations are confirmed
  • In serious cases of breaches in editorial standards, being prepared to remove published content from the journal archives

1.5 Accountability

  • As publisher, P3M STAI As-Sunnah is accountable for the journal's performance and compliance with ethical publishing standards
  • Ensuring the journal maintains standards that support its role in the surrounding literature of the subject
  • Committing to continuous improvement of editorial policies and business practices
  • Cooperating with other journals and publishers when useful and necessary

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND EDITORIAL BOARD

2.1 Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief has full authority in determining which articles to publish based on:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
  • Originality and contribution to the development of community service science
  • Quality of methodology and depth of analysis
  • Recommendations from peer reviewers
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics standards

The Editor-in-Chief is accountable for all editorial decisions and ensures that the validation of scholarly work and its importance to researchers and readers always drive publication decisions. Editorial decisions may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

2.2 Fair Editorial Process

  • Evaluating manuscripts based on academic merit without considering the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political affiliation
  • Consistently implementing a double-blind peer review process
  • Ensuring reasonable and predictable manuscript processing time
  • Ensuring published content demonstrates adherence to the policies declared by the journal

2.3 Conflict of Interest Management

  • Not assigning reviewers who have conflicts of interest with authors
  • Withdrawing from the editorial process if having a conflict of interest with a particular manuscript
  • Openly declaring all potential conflicts of interest
  • Ensuring unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts are not used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author

2.4 Editorial Quality Oversight

  • Monitoring reviewer performance and providing constructive feedback
  • Conducting periodic evaluations of the editorial process
  • Ensuring consistency in applying quality standards across all articles
  • Maintaining confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and not disclosing information to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher
  • Ensuring published content demonstrates adequate and effective peer review and/or editorial oversight beyond the peer-review statement
  • Monitoring for signs of deficient peer review including: articles that demonstrate lack of scholarly rigor or scientific validity, presence of articles outside the scope of the journal, or irrelevant citations

2.5 Responsibility in Corrections and Retractions

  • Initiating investigation procedures when ethics violations are suspected or reported
  • Making timely decisions regarding corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern
  • Ensuring transparent communication of all corrective actions to the academic community
  • Working collaboratively with the publisher to implement and publish corrective measures
  • Taking shared responsibility with the publisher for maintaining the integrity of the published record

3. PEER REVIEW POLICY

3.1 Peer Review Model

AL-ARKHABIIL implements a double-blind peer review system where the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed to ensure evaluation objectivity. This policy has been developed specifically for AL-ARKHABIIL to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity.

The journal provides a readily accessible, clear statement of its commitment to peer review for all published content. All primary research articles and community service reports are subject to external peer review.

3.2 Evidence of Peer Review

Beyond the peer-review statement on published articles, evidence of peer review is demonstrated through:

  • Reviewer comments and author responses archived in the manuscript management system
  • Revision history showing substantive changes based on peer review
  • Editorial correspondence documenting the review process
  • Quality of published content reflecting rigorous scholarly evaluation
  • Consistency with declared review timeline and procedures

3.3 Peer Review Process

Stage 1: Initial Screening (Editorial Screening)

  • Editor conducts initial screening within 7 working days
  • Evaluation of alignment with journal focus and scope
  • Plagiarism check using Turnitin software (maximum similarity 20%)
  • Verification of document completeness and writing format
  • Assessment of whether the manuscript meets basic quality standards for peer review
  • Verification that content is within the journal's scope and demonstrates scholarly rigor

Stage 2: Reviewer Assignment

  • Minimum of 2 independent reviewers for each manuscript
  • Reviewers selected based on specific expertise in related fields
  • Maximum review time of 3 weeks
  • If significant differences occur, the editor may appoint a third reviewer
  • Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting review assignments
  • Reviewers must be qualified to evaluate the specific content of the manuscript

Stage 3: Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: New contribution to knowledge (25% weight)
  • Methodology: Accuracy and clarity of research/service methods (25% weight)
  • Significance: Impact and benefit to society (20% weight)
  • Presentation: Clarity of writing and article structure (15% weight)
  • References: Completeness and currency of citations (15% weight)
  • Scope Alignment: Consistency with journal's stated scope and purpose

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based evaluation
  • Express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  • Avoid personal criticism of the author
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors
  • Call attention to any substantial similarity or overlap with previously published papers
  • Notify the editor if they feel unqualified to review the manuscript or cannot complete the review promptly
  • Conduct reviews in accordance with the journal's peer review standards

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accepted without revision: Article ready for publication
  • Accepted with minor revision: Minor improvements without re-review required
  • Major revision: Substantial improvements with re-review required
  • Rejected: Does not meet journal standards

All editorial decisions are accompanied by clear justification and are communicated to authors through the journal platform. The editor may confer with other editors or additional reviewers when making complex decisions.

3.4 Peer Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 7 working days
  • Review process: 21 working days
  • Author revision: 14 working days (minor), 30 working days (major)
  • Final decision: 7 working days
  • Total maximum time from submission to first decision: 35 working days

3.5 Process Transparency

  • Authors can track manuscript status through the online system
  • Review communication conducted through the journal platform
  • All decisions accompanied by clear justification
  • The peer review process maintains confidentiality while ensuring accountability
  • Peer review reports are preserved and available for verification if needed

3.6 Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents
  • Manuscripts must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor
  • 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 with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers
  • 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 themselves from the review process

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

4.1 Reporting Standards

  • Presenting community service results accurately and objectively
  • Providing raw data if requested for verification
  • Ensuring methodology can be replicated
  • Including sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work
  • Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable
  • Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper

4.2 Originality and Plagiarism

  • Guaranteeing that the work is original and has not been previously published
  • Citing sources correctly and completely
  • Not engaging in self-plagiarism without proper citation
  • Ensuring that if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately cited or quoted
  • Authors should ensure they have written entirely original works

4.3 Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

  • Authors should not 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

4.4 Authorship

  • 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 must obtain approval from all authors before submission
  • The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal
  • 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

4.5 Data Access and Retention

  • Authors are asked to provide raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review
  • Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable
  • Authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication

4.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • All authors should 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
  • Declaring all funding sources
  • Disclosing potential conflicts of interest
  • Stating ethical approval if involving human subjects or animal subjects

4.7 Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

  • If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript
  • If work involves human or animal subjects, appropriate ethical approvals must be obtained and documented

4.8 Acknowledgement 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
  • Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation

4.9 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
  • Authors must cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper
  • If the journal or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, authors are obligated to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the journal of the correctness of the original paper