Takwil: Journal of Quran and Hadith Studies is a peer-reviewed national journal, available in online and published twice 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 (State Islamic Institute (IAIN) Kerinci, Indonesia). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

This statement of scientific ethics applies to all parties involved in the publication process of this scientific journal, namely the management, editors, peer reviewers, and authors. This statement of the code of ethics for scientific publication is based on Regulation of the Head of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences No. 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication, which essentially upholds three ethical values in publication, namely

- Neutrality, which means freedom from conflicts of interest in the management of publications;
- Fairness, namely granting authorship rights to those who are entitled to be authors; and
- Honesty, namely freedom from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

1. Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate account of the research conducted and the key points of the discussion in an objective manner. Researchers must present their findings honestly and without plagiarism, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data. A scientific manuscript must contain sufficiently detailed information and a bibliography to allow other researchers to replicate the study. Reporting fraud or intentionally inaccurate information constitutes unethical and unacceptable behavior. The manuscript must adhere to the journal’s submission guidelines.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that all their work is entirely original. Authors may not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously unless approved by the editors. Previous works and publications of a similar nature, whether by other researchers or the author themselves, may be acknowledged and cited. If primary literature is used, it should be quoted using quotation marks. If statements are taken directly from another researcher’s published work, they should be marked as quotations.
Simultaneous Over-Publication: Generally, authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal for publication at the same time. This is intended to prevent unethical and unappreciative behavior. Good publications stem from original research and must be clearly identified so that their results can serve as references.
Acknowledgment of Sources Used: Authors must acknowledge all data sources used in the research and properly cite published works referenced in the article according to scientific standards. It is advisable to always provide proper acknowledgment of others’ research findings.
Authorship: Authorship of published research must accurately reflect each individual’s contribution to the scientific paper and its report. Authorship is limited to researchers who made significant contributions, particularly regarding the concept, design, and interpretation of the study presented. Other researchers who also contributed should be listed as the second, third, and subsequent authors. If the primary contributor is listed as the first author, other contributors should be listed in the acknowledgments section. Authors must ensure that all contributors have reviewed and approved the manuscript to be published and their inclusion as second, third, and subsequent authors.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that might influence the interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of funding supporting the project must be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Journals: If an author discovers a fundamental error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author must heed the advice and feedback from the journal editor or publisher and collaborate with the editor to correct the manuscript.
Hazards, People, and Animals: Authors must clearly identify hazards present in their manuscript, such as chemicals, procedures, and equipment used.

2. Editorial Responsibilities

Publication Decisions: Based on the results of the editorial board’s review, editors may accept, reject, or request revisions to scientific manuscripts. The validity of the work and its importance to researchers and readers should always guide these decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and constrained by legal provisions regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. Editors are responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and to maintain the integrity of the published work.
Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that every manuscript is initially evaluated by an editor for originality. Editors must organize and utilize peer review conducted by qualified and judicious reviewers. Additionally, they must explain the peer review process when communicating with authors and indicate which parts of the journal are subject to review. Editors must also select appropriate peer reviewers for works worthy of publication by choosing individuals with sufficient expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Principle of Fairness: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal’s editorial board is reviewed for intellectual content without regard to the author’s gender, race, religion, nationality, etc. A key part of their responsibility is making fair decisions that uphold the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors hold significant power in making publication decisions, making it crucial that this process is as fair and objective as possible.
Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and author confidentiality, including using appropriate information related to current research presented, as well as research that is applicable and worthy of publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal editors shall not use unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the author’s written consent. Editors should not be involved in decisions regarding manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

3. Duties of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as confidential information. It must not be disclosed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
Cited Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have properly cited all data sources used in their work. They must also identify relevant published scientific works that have not been cited by the author. Any claims that observations, derivations, or opinions have been previously reported should be supported by relevant citations. Reviewers must notify the journal’s editorial board as soon as possible if they encounter any irregularities, such as ethical issues, discover substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and a manuscript submitted to the journal or another published article, or suspect that such issues may have occurred during the research, writing, or submission of the manuscript; Reviewers must, however, maintain the confidentiality of the authors and refrain from further investigation unless the journal’s editorial board requests additional information or advice.
Standard of Objectivity: The review of submitted manuscripts must be conducted objectively, and reviewers must present their views with clear and supporting arguments. They must also follow the journal’s guidelines regarding the specific feedback required by the author, unless there is a reasonable justification for not doing so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts, offering suggestions and input that support the statements made in the manuscript, with the understanding that this will enhance the quality of the authors’ work.
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 associated with the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), they must notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper. If there are conflicting views, the reviewer may suspect the author’s identity by notifying the editorial board that the manuscript has the potential to create a conflict of interest.
Timeliness: Reviewers must provide feedback within the agreed-upon timeframe. They should only agree to review a manuscript if they are confident they can submit their review within the agreed-upon timeframe, and should inform the journal as soon as possible if they require additional time. If they feel it is impossible to complete the manuscript review within the specified timeframe, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer

Source: https://publicationethics.org/