Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of Social Studies (JSS) is a peer reviewed, open access, scholarly journal that provides a dedicated, interdisciplinary forum for international research on all aspects of social studies. The Journal of Social Studies (JSS) covers critical social studies on Indonesian and Third World social issues  which are analyzed using various scientific perspectives.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The peer review process aims to ensure that high quality manuscripts relevant to the topics of the journal are published. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below

Administrative submission evaluation
All submissions are checked by the Journal Administrator to ensure that they conform to the paper requirements outlined on the author information page of the journal website. Issues such as paper length, standard of the English language, format of diagrams, referencing style, etc. are considered. If the submission does not meet all or some of these criteria the submission will be declined, and the authors asked to resubmit after addressing the issues.

Initial Editorial evaluation
One of the Chief Editors evaluates all submitted manuscripts. A manuscript can be rejected at this stage due to not being insufficiently original, having serious scientific flaws, having poor language, or for being outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are either managed by the Chief Editor or passed to an Associate Editor to manage the peer review process.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within one month of receipt.

Double-Blind Peer Review
The Journal adopts ‘double blind’ peer reviewing. This means the reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the review process, and the identity of the author(s) is also unknown to the reviewers.

Selecting a Reviewer
Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise, details of which are held on our reviewer database.

Reviewer reports
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original as to thought and method (including data)
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly and extensively references previous relevant work
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
  • Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript, or to suggest whether the manuscript requires proof reading. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic accuracy and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. The typical time for the first round of the review process is approximately 6 weeks, with a maximum of three months. Should the two reviewer’s evaluations contradict one another, or a review is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second suitably experienced individual to review a manuscript, and the one report received has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for revisions may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, on the basis of only one review. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the reviewer recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial reviewers for checking, who may then request further revision or recommend a reject if it is felt that insufficient changes have been made to the manuscript.

The Chief Editor's decision is final
Reviewers advise the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

 

Publication Frequency

March and September

 

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 Fee

Journal does not charge APCs, submission charges, or another fee. All processes of article publication are free of charge.

 

Screening of Plagiarism

Scanning of plagiarism on the manuscripts will be conducted by using Turnitin software, provided by Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

 

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal of Social Studies (JSS) is a peer-reviewed journal, published twice a year by Himpunan Sarjana Ilmu-ilmu Sosial Indonesia (The Association of Educational scholars of Indonesian Social Studies) in collaboration with the Faculty of Social Sciences of Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. It is available online as open access sources as well as in print. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor-in-chief, the Editorial Board, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in Journal of Social Studies (JSS) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific methods. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society. As the publisher of Journal of Social Studies (JSS) takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and it recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. The Association of Educational scholars of Indonesian Social Studies in collaboration with the Faculty of Social Sciences of Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. 

Publication Decisions
The editors of Journal of Social Studies (JSS)is responsible for deciding which 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 their decisions.

Plagiarism Screening

It is basically author’s duty to only submit a manuscript that is free from plagiarism and academically malpractices. The editor, however, double checks each article before its publication. The first step is to check plagiarism against offline database developed by The Association of Educational scholars of Indonesian Social Studies in collaboration with the Faculty of Social Sciences of Yogyakarta State University and, secondly, against as much as possible online databases.

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

Confidentiality
The editors 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.

 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in editors' own research without the express written consent of the author.

 

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the author in improving the quality of the paper.

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 editors and excuse himself from the review process.

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.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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 a proper citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors' attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper 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 advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers.

Review Process
Every manuscript submitted to Journal of Social Studies (JSS) is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of "double-blind review". Decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendation. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards
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.

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 that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

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.

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.

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 research. 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.

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.

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.

Human Studies

Experimental Requirements

If your work involves the use of human subjects, you must ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki for experiments involving humans.

Ethic Committee Approval of Human Studies and Informed Consent

Studies on patients or volunteers must be approved by an ethics committee, and require informed consent. This must be documented in the methods section of the paper, along with confirmation that the study complies with all regulations. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. Unless you have written permission from the patient (or the next of kin, where applicable), you must remove the personal details of any patient included in any part of the article and in any supplementary materials (including all illustrations and videos) before submission. 

Sex and Gender in Research

We encourage our authors to follow the ‘Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines’ and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. We suggest that our authors consult the full guidelines before submission.

 

Borders and Territories

Potential disputes over borders and territories may have particular relevance for authors in describing their research or in an author or editor correspondence address, and should be respected. Content decisions are an editorial matter and where there is a potential or perceived dispute or complaint, the editorial team will attempt to find a resolution that satisfies parties involved.

 

Journal of Social Studies (JSS) stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Consent for Research Involving Children, Adolescents, and Vulnerable or Incapacitated Study Participants

Written informed consent must be obtained from the parent or guardian of any participants who are not able to provide full informed consent themselves. Age of legal adulthood is determined by the country in which study participants are based, which is typically between ages 16-18. A statement to confirm informed consent has been obtained must be included within the manuscript.

In settings where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript.

In accordance with the principles outlined in the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, informed consent must have been given with free will, under no coercion or bribery of any kind.

 

Retrospective Studies

Researchers must confirm they have obtained ethical approval to conduct the study, as well as permission from the dataset owner to use the information in databases/repositories for the purposes of the research they are conducting. Where permission to use information from a database/repository is not required (e.g. where it is publicly available and unrestricted re-use is permitted via an open license), a statement to explain this must be included within the manuscript.

Data acquired must be kept anonymized unless otherwise advised by the owners of the content in the database. Where participants’ details are not required to be anonymized, authors must be able to provide evidence that written informed consent, including consent to publish, was obtained from participants. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript.

 

Survey Studies

Researchers must ensure they have informed all participants why the research is being conducted, whether or not anonymity is assured, and how the data they are collecting is being stored. The participant’s right to confidentiality should always be considered and they should be fully informed about the aims of the research and if there are any risks associated. Their voluntary consent to participate should be recorded and any legal requirements on data protection should be adhered to.

As with all research studies, ethics approval from an appropriate IRB/local ethics committee must be obtained prior to conducting the study. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript. In settings where ethics approval for survey studies is not required, authors must include a statement to explain this within the manuscript.

 

Covert Observational Research

As the nature of this type of research does not provide study participants the opportunity to opt-out or provide full informed consent, researchers must ensure they have considered the full rationale for the covert nature of their research and obtain ethical approval to conduct the study from an appropriate ethics committee. Ideally, researchers should seek informed consent from the study participants after the completion of the study. Authors must include a statement within the manuscript to provide the rationale for the covert nature of the research and the details of the name of the ethics committee(s) which approved the study and include the reference/permit numbers where available. Please note, the Editor reserves the right to deem research of this type not suitable for consideration in their journal.

 

Research on Indigenous Communities

Authors should be aware of any specific research ethics approval and informed consent procedures which need to be followed in order to conduct research in communities where special processes for permissions may exist. Authors should also be aware of cultural sensitivities or any restrictions associated with the publication of content, including images included in their manuscripts. In many indigenous communities, additional permissions may need to be sought from community leaders or an Elder.

Authors working with indigenous communities are advised to consult appropriate guidelines for ethical research and publishing (including requirements for authorship) such as the AIATSIS Guidelines for ethical publishing, the National Inuit Strategy on Research and Interviewing Elders: Guidelines from the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Authors conducting research using media tools are advised to consult appropriate guidelines such as the On Screen Protocols & Pathways: A Media Production Guide to Working With First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Communities, Cultures, Concepts & Stories.

 

Communication Research

Scholars in the field of communication should be aware of any restrictions for using copyrighted content for their work. Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the Code of best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication published by The International Communication Association.

 

Social Media Research

Scholars using data gathered from social media platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) should be aware of the ethical guidance surrounding the gathering of and publication of such information. In particular, careful consideration should be made for any requirements for obtaining ethical approval of studies from appropriate institutional review boards or ethics committees prior to conducting the study, obtaining informed consent from anyone identified in the submitted work or ensuring appropriate anonymization. Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the ethics statement and framework from Social Data Science Lab and the ethical guidelines for digital research from the British Sociological Association.



Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing the article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address 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 contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step 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 are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. 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 the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Journal of Scocial Studies (JSS)will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.