Publication Ethics

Ethics for Journal Publication

Publishing ISLAMIDA articles is essential in developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. This is a clear reflection of the quality of the author's work and the institutions that support it. Peer-reviewed articles help and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is important to agree on the standards of ethical behavior that are expected for all parties involved in the act of publishing namely: authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and the public. ISLAMIDA publishers have an obligation to take all stages of publishing seriously and recognize ethical standards and other responsibilities. LPPM STAI Darussalam Lampung, Lampung, Indonesia is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or additional commercial revenue do not impact or influence editorial decisions.

Publication Decision

ISLAMIDA editors are responsible for deciding the best and eligible articles for publication. Validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive such decisions. Editors may be guided at the discretion of the journal's editorial board and limited by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making decisions.


An editor evaluates each manuscript for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.


Editors and any editorial staff may not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors and appropriate publishers.

Conflict of Interest

Unpublished material set forth in a submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's research without the written consent of the author.

Reviewer/Reviewer Tasks

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also assist authors in improving papers.


Any selected reviewer who feels unable to review a research article in a timely manner, must notify the editor for further action.


Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.

Review Standard

Objectivity must be done objectively. No need to criticize the author personally. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Source Acknowledgment

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Relevant citations must accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention for any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with the author, company, or institution with which the paper is associated.

Writer's Task

Reporting Standard

Authors of the original research report must present an accurate account of the work carried out as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be presented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to copy the work. Deceptive or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written an entirely original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, then these have been appropriately cited or cited.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

In general, an author may not submit essentially the same manuscript in more than one major journal or publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Source Acknowledgment

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work reported.

Paper Writer

Authors should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or listed as contributors. Relevant authors must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper and have approved its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflict

Interests All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscripts that could be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work closely with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Alleged Research Violations

Research infringement means falsification, falsification, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in the creation, conduct, review and writing of articles by the authors, or reporting of research results. If an author is found to be involved in a research error or other serious deviation involving an article that has already been published in a scientific journal, the Editor has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected violations, the Editors and the Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to help them resolve complaints and deal fairly with violations. This will include an investigation into the allegations by the Editor. Submitted manuscripts found to contain such errors will be rejected. In cases where the published paper contains such infringement, a retraction may be published and linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegations and assessing whether the allegations are consistent with the definition of research error. This initial step also involves determining whether the individual suspected of committing the offence has a relevant conflict of interest.

Assuming scientific error or other substantial research deviation is a possibility. In such cases, the allegations were shared with the relevant authors, who requested to provide detailed responses on behalf of all the co-authors. Once responses are received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) can be obtained. For cases where minor infringement may occur, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published as a letter to the editor, and often including a notice of correction and correction to the published article is sufficient.

Institutions are expected to carry out appropriate and thorough investigations into alleged scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific records. By appropriately responding to concerns about scientific errors and taking the necessary actions based on the evaluation of the matter, such as corrections, retractions with replacements, and retractions, ISLAMIDA will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.


Papers published in ISLAMIDA will be withdrawn from publication if:

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of error (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
  2. findings have previously been published elsewhere without cross-reference, permission, or proper justification (i.e., cases of over-publication)
  3. Is a work of plagiarism
  4. report unethical research