- Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
- Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
- Peer Review Process
- Open Access Policy
- Article Processing Charges (APC)
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher, namely IIES Independent.
Section A: Publication and authorship
- All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two International Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
- Review processes are blind peer review.
- The factors taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
- If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
- No research can be included in more than one publication.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
- Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- Authors must participate in the peer review process.
- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
- Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
- Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review 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.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities
- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
- Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
- Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
- Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication’s scope.
- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
- Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Papers submitted to our journal will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Editor will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to our journal must have a similarity level of less than 10%.
Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to properly judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:
- An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
- Substantial copying implies for an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, is often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
- Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.
Peer Review Process
The journal published by IIES Independent uses system of double blind of peer review. Every paper submitted to our journal for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in our journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper’s suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility of the papers. The peer review of our journal proceeds in 9 steps with description as follows.
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, Our Journal temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The submitted paper is first assessed by the our editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable with our journal’s focus and scope. The paper’s composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper which pass this step will be checked by Ithenticate to identify any plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further
4. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process of our journal involves a community of experts in a narrowly defined field of education, science, social sciences and humanities, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. The impartiality is also maintained by the double blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author’s identity, conversely the author does not know the reviewer’s identity. The paper is sent to two reviewers anonymously.
5. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for suggestion of alternative reviewers, when he or she declines to review.
6. Review is Conducted
The reviewer allocates time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The EIC and handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.
8. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewers’ comment are sent anonymously to corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
9. Final Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers’ comments and instructions.
After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor supplemented with a cover page containing a check list that declares points of correction and revision that have been made.
If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.
Open Access Policy
The journal published by IIES Independent 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. We uses platform of Open Journal System (OJS). Readers can be download freely without paying.
Article Processing Charges (APC)
All the articles that published in this journal are freely available online (open access). This journal only publishes online versions, not provide a commercial reprint service for the article published in all issue.
To make it possible, there is an article processing charge (APC) to cover the range of the publishing services that we provide. The charges are including the provision of online tools for editors and authors, article producing and journal website hosting, article abstracting and indexing services, and customer services.
During the submission and peer-review process, there are no charges. The APC is charged to the author when their manuscript is editorially accepted or before the publication.
Further information to make payments will be notified along with the status of their manuscript is editorially accepted.