Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Socio Religia (JSR) invites scientists, researchers, and students to contribute their research related to the fields of sociology of religion, such as religious society, multicultural society, Conflict, gender, social development, family and relationship, democracy, social movement, urban and rural society, Pesantren Sociology, social psychology and interfaith social relations either textual or field research with a social perspective, especially in theoretical framework of sociology of religion.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The journal operates a peer review process and promotes blind reviewing. The acceptance or rejection of articles will be decided by the editorial boards based on the review results supplied by the reviewers. There are no communications between authors and editors concerning the rejection decision. Before going to review process, all manuscripts will be checked that they are free from plagiarism practice using "Turnitin" software. If there is an indication of plagiarism, the manuscript will instantly be rejected. Authors whose papers are rejected will be informed with the reasons of the rejection.

The editors reserve the right to suggest that the authors have their manuscipts proofread and edited by professional proofreaders, and to decline publication of manuscripts whose authors do not comply with the editors' suggestions.

 

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 and Misconducts

Sosio Religia is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer,­ and the publisher (Prodi Sosiologi Agama Fakultas Ushuluddin dan Studi Agama Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Sosio Religia 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.  

Fakultas Ushuluddin dan Studi Agama Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung as the publisher of Sosio Religia 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.

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 co-authors, 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 the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the Sosio Religia journal will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

The Sosio Religia journal will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to respected personal concerning the case of a complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

Post-publication discussions

Sosio Religia allows debate post-publication either on its site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site.

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 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.

Data Sharing Policies


Sosio Religia is committed to a more open research landscape, facilitating faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodology, and reporting standards. We encourage authors of articles published in our journals to share their research data including, but not limited to raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials.

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.



Acknowledgment 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 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.

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.

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 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.


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.

Ethical Oversight 

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal, ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. 

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

 

Abstract and Index

Sosio Religia is indexed in 

1. Google Scholar

 

 

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by OJS Editorial Board using Grammarly Plagiarism Checker and CrossCheck plagiarism screening service powered by Turnitin.Com, For CrossCheck plagiarism screening service Klik This

 

 

Responsibilities of Editors

The editor and field editors of Sosio Religia should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

General duties and responsibilities

Editors are responsible for each study published in Sosio Religia. In this respect, the editors have the following roles and responsibilities:

  • Making efforts to meet the demand for knowledge from readers and authors,
  • Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
  • Managing the procedures aimed to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
  • Supporting freedom of expression,
  • Ensuring academic integrity,
  • Following the procedures without making concessions on intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
  • Being transparent and clear in issues that require correction or explanation.

Relationships with Readers

Editors must make decisions taking into consideration the knowledge, skills, and expectations of all readers, researchers, and practitioners need. They must also ensure that the published studies contribute to the literature and be original. Moreover, they must take notice of the feedback received from researchers and practitioners and provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Authors

Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with authors:

  • Editors must make positive or negative decisions about the studies' importance, originality, validity, clarity in wording and suitability with the journal's aims and objectives.
  • Editors must accept the studies that are within the scope of the publication into pre-review process unless there are serious problems with the study.
  • Editors must not ignore positive suggestions made by reviewers unless there are serious problems with the study.
  • New editors, unless there are serious issues, must not change the previous editor's decisions about the studies.
  • Blind Review and Review Process must be published and editors must prevent possible diversions in the defined processes.
  • Editors must publish an Author's Guide that is comprehensive enough in answering queries by authors. This guide must be updated regularly.
  • Authors should be provided with explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Reviewers

Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with reviewers:

Editors must

  • choose reviewers according to the subject of the study.
  • provide the information and guidance reviewers may need during the review process.
  • observe whether there are conflicting interests between reviewers and authors.
  • keep the identities of reviewers confidential in blind review.
  • encourage the reviewers to review the manuscript in an unbiased, scientific and objective tone.
  • evaluate reviewers regularly based on criteria like performance and timing.
  • develop practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
  • take the necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
  • prevent unkind and unscientific reviews.
  • make an effort to ensure the reviewer pool has a wide range.

Relationships with the Editorial Advisory Board

Editors must make sure that the members of the Editorial Advisory Board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the Editorial Advisory Board and provide the information they need.

Moreover, editors must

  • ensure that the members of the Editorial Advisory Board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
  • select the new members of the Editorial Advisory Board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
  • send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the Editorial Advisory Board.
  • regularly communicate with the Editorial Advisory Board.
  • arrange regular meetings with the Editorial Advisory Board for the development of publication policies and the journal.

 

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

 

The authors who submit their manuscripts to Sosio Religia are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

  • Author(s) must submit original studies to the journal. If they utilize or use other studies, they must make the in-text and end-text references accurately and completely.
  • People who have not contributed to the study at the intellectual level should not be indicated as author.
  • If the manuscripts submitted to be published are subject of conflicting interests or relations, these must be explained.
  • During the review process of their manuscripts, author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
  • Author(s) should document that they have the participants' consent and the necessary permissions related with the sharing and research/analysis of the data that are used.
  • Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
  • Authors cannot submit their studies to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission can be made only after the previous one is completed. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to Journal of Early Childhood Studies.
  • Author responsibilities given in a study (e.g.: adding an author, reordering of author names) whose review process has begun cannot be changed.

Please fill in Statement of Ethical clearance to be included as an attachment file when submission (Submit articles) download


 

Article Processing Charges

Sosio Religia does not charge any submission or publication fees, and no fees are incurred for article processing or for the review process.

Note:
Any translation or proofreading costs are paid by the author. Translation and proofreading services are provided by external parties.

 


 

Correction and Retraction

Sosio Religia takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record of our content for all end users very seriously. Changes to articles after they have been published online may only be made under the circumstances outlined below. Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal place great importance on the authority of articles after they have been published and our policy is based on best practice in the academic publishing community.
 
An Erratum is a statement by the authors of the original paper that briefly describes any correction(s) resulting from errors or omissions. Any effects on the conclusions of the paper should be noted. The corrected article is not removed from the online journal, but notice of erratum is given. The Erratum is made freely available to all readers and is linked to the corrected article.
 
A Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. Retractions are issued if there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, this can be as a result of misconduct or honest error; if the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification; if the work is plagiarized; or if the work reports unethical research. To protect the integrity of the record, the retracted article is not removed from the online journal, but notice of retraction is given, is made freely available to all readers, and is linked to the retracted article. Retractions can be published by the authors when they have discovered substantial scientific errors; in other cases, the Editors or Publisher may conclude that retraction is appropriate. In all cases, the retraction indicates the reason for the action and who is responsible for the decision. If a retraction is made without the unanimous agreement of the authors, that is also noted. In rare and extreme cases involving legal infringement, the Publisher may redact or remove an article. Bibliographic information about the article will be retained to ensure the integrity of the scientific record.
 
A Publisher's Note notifies readers that an article has been corrected subsequent to publication. It is issued by the Publisher and is used in cases where typographical or production errors (which are the fault of the Publisher) affect the integrity of the article metadata (such as title, author list or byline) or will significantly impact the readers' ability to comprehend the article. The original article is removed and replaced with a corrected version. Publisher's Notes are freely available to all readers. Minor errors that do not affect the integrity of the metadata or a reader's ability to understand an article and that do not involve a scientific error or omission will be corrected at the discretion of the Publisher.
 
In such a case, the original article is removed and replaced with a corrected version. The date the correction is made is noted on the corrected article. Authors should also be aware that an original article can only be removed and replaced with a corrected version less than one year after the original publication date. Corrections to an article which has a publication date that is older than one year will only be documented by a Publisher's Note.

 

Archiving

Sosio Religia strives for the constant availability of published articles. With this in mind, Sosio Religia content is continually archived and preserved its published articles in the library of Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung.

 

 

Revenue Sources, Advertising, and Direct Marketing

Revenue Sources

The operations of Sosio Religia are funded by the State (the Ministry of Religious Affairs Republic of Indonesia), i.e., through Daftar Isian Pelaksanaan Anggaran (DIPA) of Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung, Indonesia.

Advertising

Sosio Religia does not accept advertising from any parties.

Direct Marketing

In promoting the journal and the results of publications to the public, Sosio Religia tries not to do things detrimental to other parties (e.g., spreading spam) and to avoid misleading information between prospective authors and publishers.