Publication Ethics

Jurnal Sundermann is a peer-reviewed journal that is published periodically, twice a year (June and December). Jurnal Sundermann publishes scientific articles in the fields of Christian theology, religious education and socio-cultural which have a significant contribution to the development of theological sciences, Christian religious education, and socio-culture.

Publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals is an essential part of scientific development - articles from peer-reviewed support and embodying a scientific approach. Therefore, there must be standards of ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing, such as journal editors, reviewers, and authors. This guide was adopted based on Elsevier's publication ethics policy and COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf).

Jurnal Sundermann editor are committed to guarantee that all procedures are directed merely to facilitate an objective and intellectual treatment. Further, the editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or certain political and group interest. A software is used to avoid plagiarism among the articles.

Duties of Editors

  1. Publication Decisions

    Sundermann Journal Editor is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is based on validation of the article as well as the contribution of the article to researchers and readers. In carrying out its duties, the Editor is guided by the policy of the editorial board and is subject to legal provisions that need enforcement such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with the editor or other reviewer in making the decision.

  2. Peer Review

    Sundermann Journal Editor ensures that the peer-review process is fair, impartial and timely. Articles to be published in the Sundermann journal will be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and if necessary will seek additional opinions. For this purpose, editors choose reviewers who have the appropriate expertise in the relevant field and must follow best practices in avoiding fraudulent peer reviewer selection. The editor will also review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers to determine whether there is a potential bias.

  3. Fair Play

    Sundermann Journal editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author. The editorial policy of the journal should encourage transparency and reporting that is complete, honest, and editors must ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The editor shall use a standard electronic journal submission system for all journal communications.

  4. Confidentiality

    Sundermann journal editor shall protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.

    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

  5. Declaration of Competing Interests

    Any potential editorial conflict of interest should be disclosed to the publisher in writing before the appointment of the editor, and then be updated if and when new conflicts arise.

    Sundermann journal editor may not be involved in decisions about papers written by themselves or written by family members or colleagues or related to products or services that are of interest to the editor. Furthermore, each submission must be subject to all the usual journal procedures, peer reviews must be handled independently from the relevant authors/editors and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement of this effect in published papers.

  6. Vigilance over the Published Record

    Sundermann journal editor should work to maintain the integrity of the published records by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected violations (research, publication, review, and editorial), together with the publisher.

    Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript and giving due consideration to the individual complaint or claim made but may also include further communication to relevant the institutions and research bodies. The editor shall further make appropriate use of the publisher’s systems for the detection of misconduct, such as plagiarism.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

    Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.  Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.  In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe proper reviewing etiquette.

    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 decline to participate in the review process.

  2. Promptness

    Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

  3. Confidentiality

    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.

    Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.

    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

  4. Alertness to Ethical Issues

    A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

  5. Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests

    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

    Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

    If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s or their associates’ work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards

    Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

    Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

  2. Data Access and Retention

    Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

  3. Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources

    The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and or words of others, which this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that provide the appropriate work context within the more considerable scholarly record. 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.

    Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

  4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

    An author should not, in general, 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

    In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint.

    Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary paper.

  5. Confidentiality

    Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

  6. Authorship of the Paper

    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 substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors.

    Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g., language editing or medical writing), they should be recognized in the acknowledgments section.

    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 article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

    Authors are expected to consider the list and order of authors carefully before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission.

    Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  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 the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.