Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

REGISTER JOURNAL is a peer-reviewed electronic international journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief Editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewed, and the publisher (State Islamic University of Salatiga (UIN) Salatiga).

All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If the Editor approves submissions, peer-reviewers will consider submissions whose identities remain anonymous to the authors.

The publication ethics is a commitment that draws up some moral limitations and responsibilities of research journals.

REGISTER JOURNAL adheres to a strict code of practice to ensure that all parties involved in the publishing process (authors, reviewers, and editors) maintain a high standard of ethical behavior throughout the process and that malpractice is dealt with in a timely and responsible manner. The journal's code of practice is influenced by guidelines made available by the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (RistekDikti) of the Republic of Indonesia, emphasizing ethics in publishing and avoiding scientific malpractice. In addition, the journal's code of practice is influenced by guidelines made available by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is observed by the journal's Editorial Board. See COPE Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers at


The major principles of peer review by COPE are restated in the following.

 Duties of Reviewers

 Peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess on time
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is essentially a reciprocal endeavor and undertake their fair share of reviewing promptly.
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

 Expectations during the peer-review process

On being approached to review, Peer reviewers should:

  • respond in a reasonable time frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  • declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they can assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
  • 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.
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing for interests (for example, personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions, and the journals' criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
  • ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
  • not agree to review a manuscript to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
  • decline to review if they cannot provide a fair and unbiased review.
  • decline to review if they have been involved with any work in the manuscript or its reporting.
  • decline to review if asked to review a manuscript similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
  • decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g., it uses open to review and releases the reviewers' names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal's review policies.

 During review

Peer reviewers should:

  • notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover a conflicting interest that wasn't apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased review.
  • refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
  • read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files), and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is unclear and requesting any missing or incomplete items need to carry out a full review.
  • notify the journal as soon as possible if they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn't wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process.
  • keep all manuscripts and review details confidential.
  • contact the journal if circumstances arise that prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if they are still asked to do so.
  • in the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  • notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  • not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
  • ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or intellectual biases.
  • not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.


When preparing the report

Peer reviewers should:

  • bear in mind that the Editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
  • make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
  • follow journals' instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, how this should be organized.
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
  • not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
  • be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
  • remember it is the authors' paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their preferred style if it is sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, necessary.
  • be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
  • make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.
  • not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest another person has done the review.
  • not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
  • not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors' work mentioned in the manuscript.
  • ensure their comments and recommendations for the Editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report.
  • confidential comments to the Editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.
  • not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work merely to increase the reviewer's (or their associates') citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
  • determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing.
  • if they are the Editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review if the journal operates blind review; providing a review for a manuscript being handled by another editor at the journal can be treated as any other review.

 Expectations post review

Peer reviewers should:

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
  • respond promptly if a journal contacts about matters related to their manuscript review and provide the information required.
  • contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after submitting their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • try to accommodate journal requests to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.


Duties of Editors

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:

  • strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • constantly improve the journal;
  • ensure the quality of the material they publish;
  • champion freedom of expression;
  • maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
  • always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

 Relations with readers

  • Readers should be informed about who has funded research and the role of the funders in the research.

Relations with authors

  • Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
  • Editors' decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality, and clarity, and the study's relevance to the journal's remit.
  • A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
  • Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
  • Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
  • Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
  • New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish recommendations made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.

 Relations with reviewers

  • Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
  • Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers' identities are protected — unless they have an open review the system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

 The peer-review process

Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.  and


Authors Responsibility

The requirements for publishing in this journal are:

  • All named authors must have contributed to the writing of the paper.
  • Papers must not contain substantial duplication of research published elsewhere, although papers referring to new aspects or interpretations of research published elsewhere are acceptable.
  • Authors must confirm that the paper, or portions of it, has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. Where overlap exists with other papers, the authors should declare this in a note to the Editor (notes to the Editor can be included during the online submission process).
  • Authors are responsible for ensuring they have complied with their countries' and institutions' legal and ethical requirements and that they have secured all the necessary ethics approvals.
  • Authors must ensure that reports of their research as contained in the paper they submit are accurate descriptions of the research and that no falsification of procedures, data, or outcomes is included. Authors must be willing to provide access to the data on which the paper is based on a reasonable request.
  • If authors become aware of errors or inaccuracies in their work during the review process or after the publication of a paper, they must inform the Editor immediately and be prepared to provide a statement of retraction or correction.
  • Authors must declare the source of any financial support that has contributed to the research discussed in the paper or to the writing of the paper (such a declaration can be made as part of the online submission process but is usually also included in the acknowledgment section at the end of the paper).
  • Authors must declare as part of the submission process any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the paper or the process of publication.
  • Authors must seriously avoid misconduct in research, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others.