Policy Statement

We understand that authors put significant effort into preparing manuscripts, and our peer-review processes reflect that commitment. However, there are instances when published articles need to be withdrawn or corrected for scientific reasons. These actions should be taken seriously and only under exceptional circumstances to maintain the credibility of our electronic archives. Our commitment and policy aim to uphold the integrity and completeness of crucial scientific records for the benefit of researchers and library archives. 

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and in writing it up, or in the reporting of research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, the editors have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific records.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and editorial board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving any complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to involve such misconduct, a retraction will be published and linked to the original article.

The first step in such a process involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations will be shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, will be requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional reviews and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be needed. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific records. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of such concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, or retractions, Halal International journal will continue to fulfill its responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

The explanation of Allegation of Research Misconducts follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/misconduct

It is generally a principle of scholarly communication that the journal Editor is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted might be published. Through manufacturing this decision, the Editor is guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and constrained by such legal requirements related to slander, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The result of this principle is the significance of scientifical archives as permanent historic records of scholarship transactions. Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as possible. However, occasionally circumstances can arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under extraordinary circumstances. Throughout cases, our archives at International Journal of Social Learning will hold all versions of articles, including those that were recalled or deleted. 

This policy has been designed to resolve this problem and to consider the best practice in the community of academics and libraries. As long as standards develop and change, we will revisit this problem and receive all of the input from the library and academic community. We believe this problem needs an international standard and will actively lobby for various information to establish an international standard and the best practice which could be adapted by industrial information and publishing. 

WiShEL: Walisongo Sharia Economic Law is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards for all parties involved in the act of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal: the author, the editor of the journal, the peer reviewer publishing ethics, both internally and externally and we state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement based on Committe of Publication Ethics (COPE) standard. All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the publication at any time even after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing to the relevant authorities. The Journal reserves the right to use plagiarism-detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times. 

 

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES: 

1. Accountability and Plagiarism: The editors of a peer-reviewed journal are accountable and responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. It is our routine procedure to run all submission through plagiarism detection software. Our acceptance rate is no more than 25%. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making this decision.
2. Fair play: An editor should evaluate manuscripts for those intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. 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.
4. 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 connected to the papers.

 

1. Reviewers must keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential. Reviewers must bring to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief any information that may be reason to reject publication of a manuscript. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.
2. Each paper is first reviewed by the editor and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two expert reviewers for double blind peer review. Manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editorial Board and at least two expert reviewers. Decisions regarding the publication of a manuscript will be based on the Board's recommendations. Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's Editorial Board are subjected to the same review procedure.
3. The reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based on the content without considering genders, sexual preference, religious belief, citizenship, ethnic and origin, or political philosophy of the authors.
4. The reviewers need to assure the confidentiality of the information in the manuscript.
5. The reviewers need to report to the Editor-in-Chief if they find any violation in the manuscript.  
6. The reviewers need to evaluate the manuscripts as objective as possible and the results of the review present their opinion on the works.
7. The reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process.

 

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES: 

1. Reporting standards: Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors should describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others
2. Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources: Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere - fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. If an author has used the work and/or words of others, that this original is been appropriately cited or quoted and accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
3. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4. Ethics: Authors should only submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation.
5. 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.
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. 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 behavior and is unacceptable.
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.