Publication Ethics

1. Article Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer-review process to maintain objectivity and standards of academic excellence.

• Authors may request to exclude specific reviewers in their cover letter, though final decisions rest with the Editorial Board.
• The Editorial Team may consult external experts regarding submissions with serious ethical, security, or societal implications before deciding on appropriate editorial actions.

2. Plagiarism Policy

Authors must not use words, data, or ideas from others without proper attribution.

• All sources must be explicitly cited in both the text and the reference list.
• Maqashid: Jurnal Hukum Islam utilizes plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) to screen all submissions for text overlap.
• Manuscripts found to contain plagiarized material will be rejected immediately, and authors may face sanctions regarding future submissions.

3. Originality and Multiple Submissions

The journal considers only original manuscripts that have not been previously published elsewhere in any language (including Indonesian, Arabic, or English).

• Content previously included in theses, dissertations, or preprint servers may be considered provided it has been significantly expanded and developed.
• Concurrent submission (simultaneous submission) of the same manuscript to multiple journals is strictly prohibited. Manuscripts must be formally withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere.

4. Citation Manipulation

Authors must not include citations primarily intended to artificially inflate citation counts for their own work (self-citation) or for specific journals.

• Editors and reviewers are strictly prohibited from requiring authors to add citations solely to boost references to their own or their associates' publications.

5. Data Fabrication and Falsification

Fabricating or falsifying research data, results, or image manipulations constitutes severe ethical misconduct.

• Submissions containing fabricated or falsified data will be rejected. If such violations are discovered after publication, the article will be formally retracted.

6. Authorship and Acknowledgements

• Authorship Criteria: All listed authors must have made a significant intellectual contribution to the concept, design, execution, or drafting of the study, and must approve the final manuscript version.
• Acknowledgements: Individuals who provided technical support, funding, or resources but do not meet authorship criteria should be credited in the Acknowledgements section with their permission.
• Submissions made by third parties on behalf of authors will not be accepted.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must declare any potential financial, institutional, personal, or academic conflicts of interest that could influence the objectivity of the research or its evaluation.

• Financial: Funding, grants, honoraria, or other payments related to the study.
• Affiliations: Employment or board memberships in organizations with a direct interest in the research outcomes.
• Personal & Academic: Relationships, ties, or academic rivalries between authors and editors/reviewers.

If no conflicts exist, authors must state:

8. Sanctions

In cases of verified ethical breaches, the Editorial Board of Maqashid: Jurnal Hukum Islam reserves the right to apply the following measures:

1. Immediate rejection of the manuscript and any other active submissions by the author(s).
2. A temporary ban on submitting new manuscripts for 1 to 3 years.
3. A prohibition from serving as an editor or reviewer for the journal.

9. Allegation of Research Misconduct

This section explains how the journal receives, assesses, and handles allegations of research and publication misconduct concerning manuscripts under review or already published. It follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the principles of academic integrity set out in Indonesian Ministerial Regulation (Permendikbudristek) No. 39 of 2021.

Types of Misconduct Covered

• Fabrication and falsification: inventing or manipulating data, results, sources, or images.
• Plagiarism: using the words, data, or ideas of others without proper attribution, including text recycling.
• Unauthorized authorship: gift, guest, or ghost authorship, and the omission of deserving contributors.
• Duplicate or simultaneous submission: submitting, or republishing, substantially the same work to more than one journal.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: financial, institutional, personal, or academic.
• Manipulation of editorial processes: fake reviewer identities, peer-review manipulation, or coercive or inappropriate citation.
• Breaches of research ethics: for example, the absence of required informed consent or ethical clearance.

How to Submit an Allegation

Allegations should be sent by email to [email protected] with the subject line "Allegation of Research Misconduct – [article title or DOI]". Please include:

• your name, affiliation, and contact details (anonymous allegations will be considered only if they are supported by verifiable evidence);
• the title, DOI, or manuscript ID of the work concerned;
• a clear description of the alleged misconduct; and
• supporting evidence, such as overlapping texts, original data, or relevant correspondence.

Allegations must be made in good faith. Knowingly false or malicious allegations are themselves a breach of publication ethics.

Handling Procedure

1. Acknowledgement. The journal acknowledges receipt within 7 working days.
2. Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, with the Editorial Board, assesses whether the allegation is credible and falls within the scope of this section. Allegations that are clearly unfounded are closed, and the complainant is informed of the reason.
3. Response from the authors. The authors concerned are informed in confidence and invited to respond with an explanation and evidence, normally within 14 days.
4. Further review. The journal may consult independent experts or reviewers. Editors with a conflict of interest are excluded from the case.
5. Institutional referral. Where an allegation concerns the conduct of the research itself, the journal may ask the authors' institution, funder, or other competent body to investigate. The journal does not replace formal institutional investigations and will take their findings into account.
6. Decision and notification. The Editor-in-Chief makes the decision and informs the complainant and the authors in writing.
7. Record keeping. All documents are kept confidentially for future reference.

Possible Outcomes

• no further action;
• a request that the authors publish a correction;
• an expression of concern;
• retraction of the article (see 12. Correction and Retraction);
• rejection of a manuscript that is still under review;
• sanctions as described in 8. Sanctions; and
• notification of the authors' institution, funder, or another relevant authority.

Confidentiality and non-retaliation. The identity of the complainant and the details of the case are treated as confidential and shared only with those who need to know. The journal does not tolerate retaliation against anyone who raises a concern in good faith.

10. Handling of Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest does not necessarily prevent publication, but it must always be disclosed openly. This section complements 7. Conflicts of Interest by describing how conflicts are disclosed and handled at each stage.

Authors

• The disclosure must appear in a Conflict of Interest statement in the manuscript, placed before the References.
• The role of any funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, or the decision to publish must be stated.
• Authors must update their disclosure if a relevant conflict emerges before publication.

Reviewers

• Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have a competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationship with the authors or the subject matter that could affect their judgment.
• Reviewers must inform the editor of any potential conflict when accepting an invitation, or as soon as it becomes apparent.

Editors and Editorial Board Members

• Editors must declare any conflict of interest related to a manuscript and withdraw from all decisions concerning it. The manuscript is then handled by another editor who has no conflict.
• Manuscripts submitted by editors or members of the Editorial Board, or by colleagues of the Editor-in-Chief, are handled independently of the person concerned and are subject to the same double-blind peer review as all other submissions.

Conflicts Discovered After Publication

If an undisclosed conflict of interest comes to light after publication, the journal will assess whether it affects the reliability of the work. Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or, in serious cases, a retraction (see 12. Correction and Retraction). Concerns may be reported as described in 9. Allegation of Research Misconduct.

11. Post-Publication Discussion

Scholarly debate does not end at publication. Maqashid: Jurnal Hukum Islam welcomes constructive comments, questions, and critiques on the articles it has published, so that readers and authors can discuss, clarify, and challenge the published record.

Who May Submit and How

Readers, researchers, and practitioners may submit comments on any published article. Send your comment by email to [email protected] with the subject line "Post-Publication Comment – [DOI of the article]", and include:

• your real name, affiliation, and contact email;
• the title and DOI of the article;
• the specific points, data, or conclusions you wish to discuss;
• supporting evidence and references, and a declaration of any conflict of interest.

Criteria

Comments are accepted when they are:

• relevant to the content of the published article;
• evidence-based, scholarly, and respectful in tone; and
• free from personal attacks, defamatory statements, and promotional content.

Comments that allege research or publication misconduct are handled under 9. Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Editorial Handling

• The journal acknowledges receipt within 7 working days and screens the comment against the criteria above.
• Accepted comments are sent to the corresponding author(s), who are invited to reply, normally within 30 days.
• The comment, together with the authors' reply where one is received, may be published on the journal website with a cross-reference to the original article. If the authors do not reply, the journal may publish the comment with a note to that effect.
• Where a discussion reveals errors or serious concerns, the journal will follow the procedures described in 12. Correction and Retraction.
• The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. The journal may decline comments that do not meet the criteria and will inform the sender of the reason.

12. Correction and Retraction

Published articles form part of the permanent scholarly record. When an article is found to contain errors or to be unreliable, the journal acts promptly and transparently, following the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Types of Notice

• Correction (erratum or corrigendum): published when a minor error, made by the journal (erratum) or by the authors (corrigendum), affects the accuracy of the article but not its overall findings.
• Expression of concern: published when there is credible evidence of a problem but the investigation is not yet complete, or the information available is insufficient to reach a decision. It is later updated, or replaced by a correction or retraction, according to the outcome. See the COPE guidance on expressions of concern.
• Retraction: issued when findings are unreliable or the article is seriously flawed in a way that cannot be resolved by a correction.
• Removal: used only in exceptional cases, for example when an article is defamatory, infringes legal rights, or poses a serious risk to health or safety.

Grounds for Retraction

An article may be retracted when, for example:

• its findings are unreliable owing to misconduct (such as fabrication or falsification of data) or honest error;
• it contains plagiarized material, or has been published previously or simultaneously elsewhere without proper justification and disclosure;
• authorship is unauthorized or cannot be verified;
• it breaches ethical standards, such as the absence of required consent or ethical clearance;
• a serious undisclosed conflict of interest has materially affected its content or review; or
• peer review was manipulated.

Procedure

1. Report. Errors and concerns may be reported by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, or institutions. Authors who discover a significant error in their published work must notify the journal promptly and cooperate in publishing a correction or retraction.
2. Assessment. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board assess the report and may seek the authors' response and independent expert advice. The case may be handled under 9. Allegation of Research Misconduct.
3. Decision. The Editor-in-Chief decides on a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or no action. The decision is not delayed by the authors' lack of cooperation or by a pending institutional investigation, once the editors are satisfied that the article is unreliable.
4. Publication of the notice. The notice is published promptly and linked to the original article.
5. Notification. The authors, and where appropriate their institution, are informed, and indexing and metadata services are updated.

Content of a Notice

• The notice is clearly identified as a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, and is freely accessible to all readers.
• It includes the title, authors, journal, and DOI of the original article, and the date of the notice.
• It states the reason for the action and, where appropriate, who initiated it, in factual and neutral language.
• The original article remains available online, clearly marked as retracted or corrected, and the notice is linked to it, so that the scholarly record is preserved.

To report an error or request a correction or retraction, contact the Editorial Office at [email protected] and state the article's title and DOI.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the research performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Authors must present their results honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work.

Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate to correct or retract the paper.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Responsibilities of Editors

Publication Decisions: Editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published based on reports from the Journal’s Reviewer Board. Editors are guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is evaluated for its results. Editors must manage and use relevant peer reviews wisely. They should choose the right peer reviewer for each manuscript based on their area of expertise.

Fair Play: Editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial team, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that the authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the study. Reviewers should identify relevant quotations that have not been properly cited by the authors and identify relevant published work that has not been cited.

Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the authors. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments to improve the authors' manuscripts.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Accuracy: Reviewers should work within the predetermined time. They should agree to review a manuscript only if they have sufficient time to do so. Reviewers must inform the journal organizers immediately if they require extra time.

References:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Publication Ethics.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines.

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 39 Tahun 2021 tentang Integritas Akademik dalam Menghasilkan Karya Ilmiah.

By following these guidelines, MAQASHID: Jurnal Hukum Islam is committed to maintaining high ethical standards in scientific publication.