About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Fokus dan cakupan kajian Jurnal IN RIGHT: Jurnal Agama dan Hak Azazi Manusia adalah seputar kajian keagamaan dan hak azazi manusia.
1. Sosial Keagamaan
2. Sosial Politik
3. Hak Asasi Manusia
4. Gender
5. Moderasi Beragama
6. Ilmu-ilmu Agama
Peer Review Process
Every article published in the IN RIGHT: Jurnal Agama dan Hak Azazi Manusia through the process of double-blind peer-review by peer-reviewer of IN RIGHT Journal.
Articles submitted are reviewed by the editorial team as the initial process. Editorial team will evaluate the feasibility of the content, focus, and methodology in the article. The articles are then sent to one reviewer at the position Double Blind Review. Notes from reviewer then sent back to the author to be adapted to the standards of journal writing. Decision of the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated in the meeting of the editorial board. Later, the decision of editor in the final meeting will be informed to the author.
Editor of IN RIGHT: Jurnal Agama dan Hak Azazi Manusia responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted must be published. Validation of these works and their importance for researchers and readers should always push the decision. The editor can be guided by a policy board of editors of the journal and is limited by law as to be enforced regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism (plagiarism). Editors can confer with other editors or the assessment team in making this decision
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Publication Ethics
Based on REGULATION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF INDONESIAN SCIENCE INSTITUTION NUMBER 2/2014
The researcher's code of ethics is a moral reference for researchers in researching the development of science and technology for humanity. This is a form of dedication and social responsibility and devotion to God Almighty following the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 06/E/2013 concerning the Research Code of Ethics.
Researchers who are proven legally to have violated the ethics of researchers are dismissed from their positions as researchers. Provisions regarding violations of researcher ethics are further regulated through the Head of LIPI Regulation Number 06 / E / 2013 concerning Research Code of Ethics and Head of LIPI Regulation Number 08/E/2013 concerning Guidelines for Research Ethics Clearance and Scientific Publications.
The publication code of ethics statement is a statement of the code of ethics for all parties involved in the publication process in scientific journals, namely managers, editors, bestari partners, and writers. This scientific publication ethics code statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics which has been adopted in the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications. In essence, this Scientific Publication Code of Ethics is to uphold three ethical values in publications, namely (i) neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in publication management; (ii) justice, namely giving authorship rights to those entitled as writers; and (iii) honesty, which is free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications
Duties of Authors
1. Reporting Standars:
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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention:
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiaris: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
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 publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
5. 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.
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 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 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
9. 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.
Duties of Editors
1. Fair Play:
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality:
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions:
The editor board journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Review of Manuscripts:
Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
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.
2. Promptness:
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 himself from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity:
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality:
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict 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 connected to the papers.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Journal History
Jurnal IN RIGHT pertama kali terbit pada Bulan November Tahun 2011. Kehadiran Jurnal IN RIGHT dimaksud sebagai media desiminasi, inisiasi, dan sosialisasi kepada masyarakat akademik secara luas terkait tema kajian agama dan hak azazi manusia, Islam dan konstitusi, dan hukum tata negara Islam (Siyasah Syar’iyyah).
