Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Fokus jurnal adalah karya inovatif pada analisis, desain, pengembangan, implementasi, evaluasi program, proyek, dan produk sistem informasi dalam manajemen strategis dan intelijen bisnis.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The journal uses double-blind system for peer-review; both reviewers and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The paper will be peer-reviewed by two experts; one reviewer from outside and one editor from the journal typically involve in reviewing a submission. The journal will screen the paper for plagiarism using google scholar check.

 

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...

 

Review Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

Peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise?

If you receive a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.

  • Do you have the time to review this paper?

The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

  • Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

  • Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
  • Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
  • Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain the experiments, hypotheses and methods.

Content of the Article

In order to determine the originality and suitability for the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 25% of this paper field? Quick literature search can use certain tools such as Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.

  • if the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
  • is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?
  • does it contribute to knowledge?
  • does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?

Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?

Method

Comprehensive and perfect:

  • does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
  • is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for this study?
  • is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
  • is there a decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
  • does the article identify following procedures?
  • are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in details?
  • is there any appropriate sampling?
  • have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and
  • does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?

Results:

This is where the author must explain the findings in his/her research. It should be clearly laid out

and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been

carried out; the use of statistical tools? If you have a better statistical tools to be used in this study,

notify it, and the interpretation need not to be included in this section.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • are the claims in this section is supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
  • does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
  • do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories?
  • does the conclusion explain how a better scientific research to be followed-up?

Tables and Pictures:

Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data which is easy to to interprete and

understanable for the readers?

Writing Styles

  • Authors must be critical mostly to the literature systematic review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
  • Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
  • All exposure should be in English and written in a god and coherent grammar.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things that need to be considered:

Perspective

  • a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.

 

Originality Research

The original data and testing

  • it must present data that offers a new approach to improve systems, processes, and precision of the tools which are used.

Research policy and observational analysis

  • it should clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation on the research results. It is not limited to the topic of marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.

 In Practice (case study)

  • The paper should explain the situation regarding the future challenges in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship, within its conclusions, and things which can be learned.

 

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Reviews
  • Insight Technology (Product Review)

 Final Review

  • All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
  • If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
  • Do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical issues:

-  Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details

-  Fraud: It is very difficult to detect a fraud catogory, but if you suspect the results in the article is not true, please inform the editor

Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.

When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and parts that can be returned to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Section A: Publication and authorship
  1. 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. 
  2. Review process are blind peer review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors must participate in the peer-review process.
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. 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.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

 

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

Papers submitted to IJUBI will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. IJUBI 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 IJUBI must have a similarity level of less than 15%.

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.