Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Ekonomi is intended to be the journal for publishing articles reporting the results of research on Economic and Business manuscripts in the areas:

Marketing Management
Finance Management
Strategic Management
Operation Management
Human Resource Management
Knowledge Management
Management Accounting
Management Control System
Management Information System

Jurnal Ekonomi accepts articles in any related subjects and any research methodology that meet the standards established for publication in the journal. The primary audiences are academicians, graduate students, practitioners, and others interested in economic research.

Step 2. Journal Policies

Form Language	To enter the information below in additional languages, first select the language.

2.1 FOCUS AND SCOPE OF JOURNAL

Enter a statement below, which will appear in About the Journal, that speaks to authors, readers, and librarians about the range of articles and other items which the journal will publish.

2.2 PEER REVIEW

Outline the journal's peer review policy and processes for readers and authors, including the number of reviewers typically used in reviewing a submission, the criteria by which reviewers are asked to judge submissions, typical time taken to conduct the reviews, and the principles for recruiting reviewers. This will appear in About the Journal.

REVIEW POLICY

REVIEW GUIDELINES

The Review Guidelines will provide reviewers with criteria for judging a submission's suitability for publication in the journal, and can include any special instructions for preparing an effective and helpful review. In conducting the review, reviewers are presented with with two open text boxes, the first "for author and editor," and the second "for editor." Alternatively, the Journal Manager can create a peer review form under REVIEW FORMS. In all cases, editors will have the option of including the reviews in corresponding with the author.

REVIEW PROCESS

OJS supports two models for managing the review process. The Standard Review Process is recommended because it steps reviewers through the process, ensures a complete review history for each submission, and takes advantage of automatic reminder notification, and standard recommendations for submissions (Accept; Accept with revisions; Submit for review; Submit elsewhere; Decline; See comments).

Select one of the following:

	Standard Review Process Editors will email selected Reviewers the title and abstract of the submission, as well as an invitation to log into the journal web site to complete the review. Reviewers enter the journal web site to agree to do the review, to download submissions, submit their comments, and select a recommendation.

	Email-Attachment Review Process Editors send Reviewers the request to review with the submission attached to the email. Reviewers email editors their assent (or regrets), as well as the review and recommendation. Editors enter Reviewers' assent (or regrets), as well as the review and recommendation on the submission's Review page, to record the review process.

REVIEW OPTIONS

Review Time
The typical period of time allowed for reviews : weeks
Note: Can be modified during the editorial process.

Reviewer Reminders
Automated email reminders (available in OJS's default Emails) can be sent to reviewers at two points (while the editor can always email the reviewer directly as well):
If reviewer has not responded to a review request within days.
If reviewer has not submitted a recommendation within days after review's due date.
Note: To activate these options, the site administrator must enable the scheduled_tasks option in the OJS configuration file. Additional server configuration may be required to support this functionality (which may not be possible on all servers), as indicated in the OJS documentation.

Reviewer Ratings
Editors will rate reviewers on a five-point quality scale after each review.

Reviewer Access
Enable one-click reviewer access.
Note: The email invitation to reviewers will contain a special URL that takes invited reviewers directly to the Review page for the submission (with access to any other pages requiring them to log in). For security reasons with this option, editors are not able to modify email addresses or add CCs or BCCs prior to sending invitations to reviewers.
Reviewers will have access to the submission file only after agreeing to review it.

Blind Review
Provide links to ENSURING A BLIND REVIEW on pages where authors and reviewers upload files.

2.3 PRIVACY STATEMENT

2.4 EDITOR DECISION

When using the Notify Author email, include the email addresses of all co-authors for multiple-author submissions, and not just the submitting user.

2.5 ADD ITEM TO APPEAR IN "ABOUT THE JOURNAL"

Title

Content

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every article that goes to the editorial staff will be selected through Initial Review processes by Editorial Board. Then, the articles will be sent to the peer reviewer and will go to the next selection by Double Blind Peer Review Process. After that, the articles will be returned to the authors to revise. These processes take a month (four week) for a maximum time. In the each manuscript, Mitra Bebestari/ peer reviewer will be rated from the substantial and technical aspects.

All papers submitted to Jurnal Ekonomi undergo a rigorous peer-review to ensure that they not only fit into the journal's scope but are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to our readers. As a reviewer, you will be required to uphold this standard.

These guidelines will help you understand your responsibilities as a reviewer, as well as your ethical obligations to both the journal and the authors. You will also be introduced to what you should be looking for in a manuscript, so that your review will be consistent with others requested by the journal.

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.

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

Jurnal Ekonomi is a peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas Esa Unggul with e-ISSN 2528-326X and p-ISSN 2087-8133. This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of an article in this journal, including the auditor, the editor-in chief, the Editorial Board, the peer reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE’s) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Ekonomi 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 method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Duty of Publisher

Lembaga Penerbitan Universitas Esa Unggul as publisher of Jurnal Ekonomi takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Lembaga Penerbitan Universitas Esa Unggul Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of the of Jurnal Ekonomi is responsible to decide 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.

Fair play

An editor at any time 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

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.

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.

Duties of Reviewers

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.

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 editor 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 the relevant citation. 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.

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 or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

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 behaviour and are unacceptable.

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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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 behaviour 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 study. 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.

Plagiarism Screening

Every submitted paper to Jurnal Ekonomi will be screened for plagiarism and self plagiarism by Turnitin in initial process of paper screening and before publishing it in an issue. It depends on the level of originality and similarities with other documents, the editor-in chief will decide on whether to immediately reject the manuscripts, contact authors for further clarifications, or to proceed to the peer-review process.

References Management

In writing Citation and Bibliography, editor Jurnal Ekonomi suggests authors to use the Mendeley Reference Management Software.

Guideline 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
Using APA (American Style Associaton) Style on Reference

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.

link Review Form and CV

Username
Password
Remember me