Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

AIMS AND SCOPE

Given its mission of being “a leading journal in the world on the Indonesian economy and business,”  the Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business (JIEB) publishes papers on the Indonesian economy and business for international academicians, practitioners, regulators, and public societies.

The JIEB accepts empirical or conceptual papers with any methods or approach, particularly those that are relevant to the economic and business issues, which fit one of three salient disciplines: (1) Economics, (2) Business, and (3) Accounting. These fields are further divided into the following specific areas:

Economics: Public economics, international economics, development economics, monetary economics, financial economics, game theory, health economics, labor economics.

Business: Finance, marketing, consumer behavior, human resource management, organizational behavior, strategic management, operations and innovation, entrepreneurship, ethics.

Accounting: Public sector accounting, taxation, financial accounting, management accounting, auditing, and information systems.

The aforementioned are just indicative, and the board of editors in principle, welcome rigorous articles that encompass scientific economics and business fields on Indonesia.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The JIEB uses a double-blind review process. All manuscripts will initially be pre-reviewed by the editors for the basic requirements and suitability for the journal, before being sent to a minimum of two independent peer reviewers. Comments and recommendations from the reviewers help the editor to decide whether or not to publish the articles in our journal. The editor will have the final decision about whether to accept or reject the article. The editor may request the author to revise the article before making the final decision. 

Review Process:

1. An author submits the manuscript

2. Editor Evaluation/ Pre-review (some manuscripts are rejected or returned before the review process)

3. The double-blind peer review process

4. Editor Decision

5. Confirmation to the authors

All manuscripts will be screened for similarity check using Turnitin and ETS for the grammar check.

 

 

Publication Frequency

The Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business is published by the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada. It is published three times a year (January, May, and September), Number 1, 2 and 3. Since 2017 edition, each issue comprises of five articles.

 

Open Access Policy

Articles are freely available to the public without any subscription with permitted reuse. For open access articles, permitted third party (re)use is defined by the following Creative Commons user licenses: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA).

 

Publishing and Ethical Guidelines

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal reflects the work quality of its author(s) with his/her or their pertaining institution(s). Therefore, it is important for a peer-reviewed journal to have an ethical standard for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author(s), the journal editors, the peer reviewers, and the publisher. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business (JIEB) is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, and/or other commercial revenues have no impact nor influence editorial decisions. In addition, the JIEB will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers should this be necessary to the editors.

 

Duties of the Editors

The JIEB’s editors are responsible for deciding as to which of the articles submitted should be reviewed and published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such a decision. The editor-in-chief must seriously prevent libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual contents without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information on a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without a written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through a peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantages.

Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

 

Duties of the Reviewers

A peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making an editorial decision and editorial communications with the author(s). Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review research reported in a manuscript, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor-in-chief and excuse himself/herself from the review process. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citations. A reviewer should also call to the editor-in-chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he/she has personal knowledge. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without an expressed written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through a peer review must be kept confidential and not utilized for personal advantages. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

 

Duties of the Authors

Authors of a report of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as objective discussion on its significance. Data and citations should be represented accurately in the paper. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Plagiarism takes many forms, from using another’s paper as the author’s own paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), or claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is intolerable.

An author should not, in general, publish a manuscript 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source(s). Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study, and seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest. 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 JIEB’s editor-in-chief and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

For more detailed information, visit http://publicationethics.org/

 

Plagiarism

According to Regulation No. 7/2010 of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Indonesia, “Plagiarism is the intentional and unintentional practice of obtaining or trying to obtain credit or value from a scientific work without stating the source appropriately and adequately.” Another definition from the Oxford American Dictionary in Clabaugh (2001), is that “Plagiarism is to take and use another person’s ideas or writing or inventions as one’s own.” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary explains the word "plagiarize" as “stealing and passing off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own, using (another's production) without crediting the source, committing literary theft, presenting as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.” Plagiarism manifests itself in a variety of forms, including (adopted from ACM with some modification):

  • Verbatim copying, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's paper;

  • Copying elements of another author's paper, such as equations or illustrations that are not common knowledge, or copying or purposely paraphrasing sentences without citing the source;

  • Verbatim copying of portions of another author's paper, while citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g., not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly.

Self-plagiarism is a related issue. Self-plagiarism is defined as “The verbatim or near-verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without citing the original source.” Self-plagiarism does not apply to publications based on the author's own previously copyrighted work (e.g., appearing in conference proceedings) where an explicit reference is made to the prior publication. Such reuse does not require quotation marks to delineate the reused text but does require that the source is cited.

All authors are deemed to be individually and collectively responsible for the content of papers published by JIEB. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each author to ensure that papers submitted to JIEB attain the highest ethical standards with respect to plagiarism.

Plagiarism Sanctions (Adopted from ACM with Modification)

When plagiarism has been found to have occurred, JIEB will take the actions listed below as determined by the type of plagiarism. Unless determined otherwise during the investigation, all authors are deemed to be individually and collectively responsible for the content of a plagiarizing paper.

  1. Verbatim copying, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing a significant portion of another author's paper without citing the source and without clearly delineating (e.g., in quotation marks) the source material.

  • JIEB will inform the Department Chair, Dean, or supervisor of the authors of the finding of plagiarism.

  • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of plagiarism.

  • If the paper has appeared in print, JIEB will post a Notice of Plagiarism based on the investigation, on the JIEB Digital Library's citation page of the plagiarizing paper and will remove access to the full text. The paper itself will be kept in the database for future research or legal purposes.

  • If the paper is under submission, the paper can be automatically rejected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair without further revisions. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair to the authors with a copy of the JIEB’s Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

  1. Verbatim copying, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing sentences of another author's paper and/or, copying elements of another author's paper (such as non-common knowledge illustrations and equations) without citing the source and without clearly delineating (e.g., in quotation marks) the source material.

  • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of the plagiarism.

  • If the paper has appeared in print, JIEB will post a Notice of Plagiarism based on the investigation, on the JIEB Digital Library's citation page of the plagiarizing paper and will remove access to the full text. The paper itself will be kept in the database in case of future legal actions.

  • If the paper is under submission, the paper can be automatically rejected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair without further revisions. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair to the authors with a copy of the JIEB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

  1. Verbatim copying of portions of another author's paper, while citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g., not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly.

  • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of the plagiarism.

  • If the paper is under submission, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief or Program Chair, the paper can either be automatically rejected without future review or a revision will be required that clearly and correctly cites the previous work. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair to the authors with a copy of the JIEB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

  1. Self-plagiarism or redundant, duplicative publication (verbatim or near-verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work in subsequent papers, where the authors have not disclosed in the subsequent paper the previous publication).

  • If the paper has appeared in print, JIEB will post a Notice of Self Plagiarism or a Notice of Redundant Publication based on the investigation on the JIEB Digital Library's citation page of the self-plagiarizing paper.

  • If the paper is under submission and, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief or Program Chair, the paper can either be automatically rejected without future review or a revision will be required that includes a citation to and discussion of the previous paper. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor-in-Chief or the Program Chair to the authors with a copy of the JIEB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.

Sources:

  • Claubaugh, G.K. & Rozycki, E.G. (2001).

  • Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 17 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Penanggulangan Plagiat di Perguruan Tinggi

  • The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/plagiarism (last accessed 09/20/2016)

 

Submission Guidelines

Authors must submit the manuscript via the online system through the Journal’s website. Before making a submission, the author should: 

a) Carefully read this authors’ guideline. The Journal only accepts manuscripts that meet the JIEB's format and style. Any manuscript written in a different format will NOT be accepted.

b) Prepare your manuscript as per our guideline format

c) Download and complete the four document forms (http://ugm.id/authorform) or here.

  1. DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND AGREEMENT
  2. COMPETING INTERESTS STATEMENT
  3. AUTHOR AND CO-AUTHOR(S) INFORMATION
  4. ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

d) Register with JIEB’s website (click here) as an author.  Follow the five steps to submit your manuscript:

Step 1). Starting submission: Submission checklist

Step 2). Uploading your submission

Step 3). Entering submission metadata

Step 4). Uploading supplementary file, including the four required document forms

 

 

Journal Archiving

This journal utilizes the Indonesia One Search (IOS)Indonesian Scientific Journal Database (ISJD), and Indonesian Publication Index (IPI) 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.

 

Article Download Statistics

Each time our article is dowloaded, we provide for statistic downloading reports. As illustration, please find the following example here.

 

Review Guidelines

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please please note the following questions:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor or recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. 
Review Evaluation

Your review result will help the editor to decide whether or not to publish the articles in our journal. The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Conducting a review. 

1. Title. 
  • The title describes the article’s contents.
2. Abstract. 
  • An abstract must include objectives/purposes, research methods, findings, and contributions within 100-300 words. 
3. Problem Formulation. 
  • Problem recognition and its significance
  • Clear problem identification and appropriate research questions
  • Coverage of problem complexity
  • Well-defined objectives 
4. Research Methodology. 
  • Concise explanation of research methodology is prevalent
  • Reasons to choose particular methods are well described
  • Research design is accurate
  • Sample design is appropriate
  • Data collection process is proper
  • Data analysis methods are relevant and state-of-the-art
5. Research Findings.
  • Empirical and theoretical benefits
  • Economic benefits
  • Existence of new findings
6. References.
  • References are thoroughly covered in the article
  • Recency of references provided is strong
  • Citations and referencing are employed correctly and truthfully
7. Article’s Presentation and Systematic Order
  • Sufficiency of the article’s length
  • Framework and the flow of article presentation
  • Originality of the article
Recommendation

After you have read the articles and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor. The recommendations are as follow:
  • Rejected. The manuscript is not recommended for publication because of one or more of the following reasons:
    • It does not provide new contributions to knowledge
    • Multiple data errors or data are questionable
    • Findings are not credible, which may be caused by false data
    • Hypotheses are not defined or answered
    • Improper and/or insufficient methodology and/or procedures used such that they do not answer research questions
    • Unqualified statements and conclusions are not supported by data and findings from the study
    • It does not fit with the aim and scope of the journal
  • Accepted for publication. The manuscript provides new contributions using reliable data, methodology, and references. Points of analysis are clearly presented. There is a clear link from research questions to the discussion of results. The manuscript should be published.
  • Minor revision.  The manuscript is publishable subject to minor changes as expected by the reviewer. No further review is required. The following are the example of reasons for minor revision:
    • Minor data errors that can be easily fixed
    • General typographical errors (uses of grammar, punctuation marks and spelling)
    • Figures and/or tables are too few/too many
    • Some points of analysis or references are missing
  • Major revision. The manuscript may be publishable but with substantial changes needed. Further review is needed. The following are the example of reasons for major revision:
    • Major data errors (data do not match with text, tables or figures)
    • Poorly written (incomplete sentences, needs major rewriting to have a logical flow)
    • Hypotheses, methodology and/or procedures are not clearly stated, rendering the paper difficult for others to replicate
    • Figures and/or tables need major revision
    • Some important points of analysis or references are missing
  • Note about revision. If the revision is required, please indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.

THE DECISION

The editor will have the final decision on the article whether to accept or reject the article. The editor may request the author to revised the article before making the final decision.

----------------------------------------------------------------

STEPS FOR SUBMITTING THE REVIEW

Dear Reviewer, please follow the following steps while submitting your review reports;

 1. Accept to review

 2. Download the manuscript (supplementary files if any),

 3. Submit your review report:

  • Comment on the paper if possible (MS Word review tool),
  • You are required to write down your comments and suggestions on the form. The reviewer's evaluation form can be downloaded here,
  • Evaluate each part of the article,
  • Provide for recommendations: accepted, minor, major, or rejected
  • You could write your comments on the web (section reviewer's comment).

 4. Upload the 2 review report:

  • The evaluation form, and
  • The commented manuscript

 5. Choose your decision and click the button submit.

 

 

Screening for anti-plagiarism

The manuscript that is submitted to this journal will be screened for similarity check using Turnitin and ETS e-rater for the grammar check.

   
https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jieb/about/editorialPolicies
journal.ugm.ac.id
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-04
56639
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:3XRMDADG7QS7UK2BAODERIUSHIYMVW24
<urn:uuid:bfc3a6ca-8e9a-45ec-acba-cc9715afb17f>
2019-01-17T09:20:37Z
175.111.88.38
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:GX43CFJ6SS6WWAE74G7LVQ5OEALPMSGJ
<urn:uuid:c792ca09-0527-4fc9-864e-31d7610bad8a>
https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jieb/about/editorialPolicies
response
<urn:uuid:4f4074be-937e-4ce5-8447-162ddbd53e68>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-157-176-71.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/