Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter publishes scholarly articles and applied research on issues concerning character development, civic virtue, ethics, values education,  and spiritual growth in the community of education and society.

In addition to its primary emphasis on peer-reviewed articles, the journal publishes ongoing columns on current topics relating to its mission and invited articles by leading education and character development scholars.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Initial submission

Once submitted via the online system, your manuscript will undergo a standard quality control check, which comprises formatting and plagiarism checks (copies of any papers containing similar or related work under consideration or in press at other journals must be included with the submission). If any issues are identified the editorial team will return your paper to you to make appropriate changes.

After that stage, it will be assigned to a member of our Editorial Board (Editor), who will read the paper and decide whether it is appropriate for the journal. Manuscripts that are within scope and seem, on initial assessment, to be academically sound and valid, will be sent to external reviewers.

Copies of any papers containing similar or related work under consideration or in press at other journals must be included with the submission.

Peer review

During peer review, reviewers will be able to access your manuscript securely using our online system. All peer review is conducted double anonymised (or, double blind).

At the submission stage, authors may indicate a limited number of academics who should not review the paper. Excluded academics must be identified by name. Authors may also suggest potential reviewers, although we reserve the right not to follow them. The reasoning for all reviewer suggestions must be fully explained in a cover letter.

We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this is dependent on the availability of editors and reviewers. As such, no guarantees are made as to the duration of the review process.

Peer review for Collections

Article Collections (or Special Issues) are usually Guest Edited and associated with a call for papers.

All submissions to Collections are subject to the same peer review process and editorial standards as regular submissions, including the journal’s policy on competing interests.

Guest Editors must have no competing interests with the submissions that they handle through the peer review process. 

In instances of a potential or known conflict of interest, Guest Editors are recused from the manuscript handling process, and the relevant submission(s) is handled by another Editorial Board Member. 

Submissions authored by Guest Editors themselves are handled by independent Editorial Board members with no known conflict of interest or connection with the authors. In their own submissions Guest Editors are recommended to state in the acknowledgements section their connection to the journal as outlined in the conflicts section

Double-anonymised peer review

This journal uses a double-anonymised peer review. This means authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process; and the referees' identities are not revealed to the authors. The authors are responsible for anonymising their manuscript accordingly. These guidelines provide advice on anonymising submissions.

Decision after review

After considering the reviewer reports the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept outright;
  • Accept in principle, where authors make some final modifications (often editorial in nature) to prepare the paper for publication;
  • Revise and Resubmit, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns and perhaps undertake additional work;
  • Reject outright.

Revisions

In cases where the referees or Editor has requested changes to the manuscript, you will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision letter will specify a deadline for submission of a revised manuscript (extensions to this deadline may be requested). Once resubmitted, the manuscript may then be sent back to the original referees or to new referees, at the Editor’s discretion.

A revised manuscript should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, and not as a new manuscript. The revision should also be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response (rebuttal letter) to the referees explaining how the manuscript has been changed.

Final submission and acceptance

When all editorial issues are resolved, your paper will be formally accepted for publication. The received date stated on the paper will be the date on which the original submission passed our standard quality control checks. The accepted date stated on the paper will be the date on which the Editor sent the acceptance letter.

After acceptance, authors must complete the publishing agreement and article processing payment forms. Once these are received the typesetting process will begin. Authors are subsequently sent proofs of their manuscript for approval, but only changes to the title, author list or major scientific errors will be permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team. If substantive changes are requested by the authors, the Editor reserves the right to move the manuscript back into the peer review stage. The journal reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.

We reserve the right to reject a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with its academic content, or our publishing policies have been violated.

Appeals

Even in cases where Humanities and Social Sciences Communications does not invite resubmission of a manuscript, some authors may ask the Editor to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript, and appeals can only take place after peer review. 

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the relevant Edirtor is convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake. Consideration of an appeal is merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.

If an appeal merits further consideration, the Editorial Board Member may send the authors' response and the revised paper out for further peer review.

 

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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

This statement was adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and covered the code of ethics for chief editor, editorial board members, reviewers, and authors. This statement based on:

https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

Articles published in Jurnal Civics are an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge on civic education, and those are a direct reflection of the writer's and institutions' quality. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the society.  Editors of Jurnal Civics are committed to guaranteeing that all procedures 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 particular political and group interest. Software used to avoid plagiarism among the articles.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions: 

The editor boards journal is 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.

2. Fair Play: 

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

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: 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the paper (while handling it) in his or her research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or idea obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests revealed after publication.

5. Review of Manuscripts:

The editor must ensure that the editor for originality initially evaluates each manuscript. The editor should organize and use peer review justly 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. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

 

Duties of Reviewers

A reviewer should review and send the review comments in due period. If the article is not in your area of interest, then revert to the editor so that the other reviewers can be approached.

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 assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process

3. 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.

4. Standards of Objectivity: 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The proper citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. 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.

6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for particular advantage. 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.

 

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standard: 

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.

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, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism: 

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must appropriately be cited or quoted. 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 publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4. Multiple 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 constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

5. Acknowledgment 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. 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. 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 significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others 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. 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 identify these in the manuscript.

8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.

9. Fundamental errors in published works: 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original article.

 

Corrections and retractions

This journal issues corrections, retraction statements and other post-publication updates including Editor’s Notes and Editorial Expressions of Concern on published content.  

The following are categories of corrections and post-publication updates to peer-reviewed primary research and review-type articles and certain kinds of non-peer reviewed article types. Substantial errors to Supplementary Information and Extended Data are corrected in the same manner as amendments to the main article. With the exception of Editor’s Notes, all categories below are bi-directionally linked to the original article and indexed.

The journal includes the Crossmark button on the HTML and online PDFs of all articles. Crossmark is an industry standard mechanism that allows readers to quickly check that the version of the article they are reading is up-to-date. By clicking the Crossmark button readers can view the Crossmark record for that article, with details of all formal amendments and corrections.

Author Correction: An Author Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the author(s) that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.  

Author Name Change: For authors who have changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please see https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

Publisher Correction: A Publisher Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the journal that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or of the journal.

Addendum: An addendum is generally published when significant additional information crucial to the reader’s understanding of the article has come to light following publication of the article.

Editor's Note: An Editor's Note is a notification alerting readers if the journal has initiated an inquiry in response to concerns raised about a published article. It is an online-only update, made only to the HTML version of record of the published article. It is not indexed.

Editorial Expression of Concern: An Editorial Expression of Concern is a statement from the editors alerting readers to serious concerns affecting the integrity of the published paper. EEoCs are published online and are bidirectionally linked to the published paper. They receive a DOI and are indexed in major scholarly databases such as PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. EEoCs may be an interim measure or may be final. 

Publishing an Editor’s Note or EEoC is recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a means of keeping readers updated while a potentially lengthy research integrity investigation is underway. Editor’s Notes and EEoCs are typically superseded by publishing another amendment―such as a correction or retraction―once the investigation is complete.

Retraction: An article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction. The original article is marked as retracted but a PDF version remains available to readers, and the retraction statement is bi-directionally linked to the original published paper. Retraction statements will typically include a statement of assent or dissent from the authors.

When making corrections to articles, in the majority of cases the original article (PDF and HTML) is corrected and is bi-directionally linked to and from the published amendment notice, which details the original error. For the sake of transparency, when changes made to the original article affect data in figures, tables or text (for example, when data points/error bars change or curves require redrawing) the amendment notice will reproduce the original data. When it is not possible to correct the original article in both HTML and PDF versions (for example, articles published many years before the error is raised) the article will remain unchanged but will contain bi-directional links to and from the published amendment notice.

Editorial decision-making

Decisions about types of correction are made by the journal's in-house editors, sometimes with the advice of referees, Editorial Board members. This process involves consultation with the authors of the paper, but the in-house editors make the final decision about whether an amendment is required and the category in which the amendment is published.

Authors sometimes request a correction to their published contribution that does not affect the contribution in a significant way or impair the reader's understanding of the contribution (e.g. a spelling mistake or grammatical error). The journal does not publish such corrections. The online article is part of the published record and hence its original published version is preserved. The journal does, however, correct the online version of a contribution if the wording in the html version does not make sense when compared with the PDF version (e.g. 'see left' for a figure that is an appropriate phrase for the PDF but not for the html version). In these cases, the fact that a correction has been made is stated in a footnote so that readers are aware that the originally published text has been amended.

 

Plagiarism and fabrication

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas or text. As defined by the ORI (Office of Research Integrity), plagiarism can include, “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work”. Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in this journal. Aside from wholesale verbatim re-use of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others. 'Text recycling' or re-use of parts of text from an author’s previous research publication is a form of self-plagiarism. Here, too, due caution must be exercised. When re-using text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader.    

Duplicate publication occurs when an author re-uses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals, to 'salami-slicing', where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper.  

The journal’s Editors and Editorial Board members assess all such cases on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct or retract the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study.

We are part of CrossCheck, an initiative to help editors verify the originality of submitted manuscripts. As part of this process, the journal editors spot check submitted manuscripts to be scanned and compared with the CrossCheck database.

 

AI use by peer reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress,  generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools,  peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

 

Duplicate publication

Material submitted to the journal must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule applies to material submitted elsewhere simultaneously.

Authors submitting a contribution to the journal who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission, and draw attention to it in their cover letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their contributions are under consideration by the journal–for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere that was not written at the time of the submission under consider by this journal.

If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the covering letter accompanying the submission. Consideration by this journal is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work.

We are happy to consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis, which has been published according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification.

We allow and encourage prior publication on recognised community preprint servers for review by other academics in the field before formal submission to a journal. The details of the preprint server concerned and any accession numbers should be included in the cover letter accompanying submission of the manuscript.

We are happy to consider submissions containing material that has previously formed, and continues to form, part of an online academic collaboration such as a wiki or blog.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. We consider all material in good faith and that the publication has full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including any illustrations.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably, an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.

 

Competing interests

In the interests of transparency and to help readers to form their own judgements of potential bias, authors must declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work described.

Definition of a competing interest

For the purposes of this policy, competing interests are defined as financial and non-financial interests that could directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity and value of a publication, through a potential influence on the judgements and actions of authors with regard to objective data presentation, analysis and interpretation.

Financial competing interests include any of the following:

  • Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication. A specific role for the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, should be disclosed;
  • Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organisation that may gain or lose financially through this publication;
  • Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration (including reimbursements for attending symposia) from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications (awarded or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions whose value may be affected by publication. For patents and patent applications, disclosure of the following information is requested: patent applicant (whether author or institution), name of inventor(s), application number, status of application, specific aspect of manuscript covered in patent application.

It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest become significant, but note that many US universities require faculty members to disclose interests exceeding $10,000 or 5% equity in a company (see, for example, B. Lo et al. New Engl. J. Med. 343, 1616-1620; 2000). Any such figure is necessarily arbitrary, so we offer as one possible practical alternative guideline: "Any undeclared competing financial interests that could embarrass you were they to become publicly known after your work was published."

We do not consider diversified mutual funds or investment trusts to constitute a competing financial interest.

Non-financial competing interests

Non-financial competing interests can take different forms, including personal or professional relations with organisations and individuals. We would encourage authors and referees to declare any unpaid roles or relationships that might have a bearing on the publication process. Examples of non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

  • Association with the journal (e.g. membership of the journal's editorial board);
  • Unpaid membership in a government or non-governmental organization;
  • Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organisation;
  • Unpaid advisory position in a commercial organisation;
  • Writing or consulting for an educational company;
  • Acting as an expert witness.

Application to authors

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing interests statement on behalf of all authors of the paper. This statement must be included in the submitted article file, following the 'Author Contributions' section in 'Additional Information', under the heading 'Competing interests'. The corresponding author will also be required to indicate the existence of a competing interest within the submission system.

We recognise that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements. In such cases the publishing team will investigate further and may at their discretion invite the authors to state in the online version, in place of itemised disclosure: "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their financial interests in this work."

We do not require authors to state the monetary value of their financial interests.

Application to peer-reviewers

The journal invites peer-reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests need not invalidate the conclusions of an article, nor do they automatically disqualify an individual from evaluating it. We ask peer-reviewers to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that might be perceived as relevant. Editors will consider these statements when weighing peer reviewers' recommendations.

Application to Editorial Board members/Guest Editors

The journal’s Editorial Board members/Guest Editors are recommended to declare any interests that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial activities. In particular, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. This may include—but is not limited to—having previously published with one or more of the authors, and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.

Board members/Guest Editors who are authors on a paper published by this journal are recommended to declare their association in the competing/conflicts of interests statement.

The following templates are suggested, as appropriate:

  • NAME SURNAME was a member of the Editorial Board of this journal at the time of acceptance for publication. The manuscript was assessed in line with the journal’s standard editorial processes, including its policy on competing interests.
  • NAME SURNAME was a Collection Guest Editor for this journal at the time of acceptance for publication. The manuscript was assessed in line with the journal’s standard editorial processes, including its policy on competing interests.

Application to editors

journal editorial staff are required to declare to their employer any interests—financial or otherwise—that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence.