1. Home
  2. About the Journal
  3. Editorial Policies

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

1. Religion

2. Education

3. Law

4. Social Science

5. Culture

6. Politic

Section Policies

Articles

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow the focus and scope, as well as the guidelines for the authors of this journal. Manuscripts submitted must discuss scientific benefits or novelty in accordance with the focus and scope. The Editor in Chief has the right to reject articles that do not fit the theme or requirements of the Author Guidelines. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism content. All authors are advised to use plagiarism detection software to check similarities. Editors check plagiarism detection of articles in this journal using iThenticate software.
Research articles submitted to the journal are peer reviewed with a double blind review. The quality of Peer Review Statements is ensured with thoroughness and integrity, anonymous peer evaluation of each major paper by three independent referees.
The reviewers provided valuable scientific comments that enhance the manuscript content. The final decision on acceptance of articles will be made by the Editor, on behalf of the Editorial Board according to reviewers comments.
The publication of the accepted articles including the order in which the articles were published will be carried out by the Editor in Chief by considering the order of the accepted date and the geographical distribution of the authors and their thematic issues.
Review of Results: Leveraging the feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make the final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 3 to 12 weeks. The category of decisions includes,
Rejected: Submissions that are rejected will not be published and the author will not have the opportunity to send back the revised version of the manuscript to Educenter.
Resubmit Review: Submissions need to be reworked, but with significant changes, it's acceptable. However, this will require a second round of review.
Accept with Revised: Manuscripts that accept an accept-pending-revision decision will be published at Educenter on the condition that minor / major modifications are made.  Revisions will be reviewed by the editor to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
Accept: Manuscripts received will be published in their current form without the need for further modification. After review, all appropriate information is sent to the author. Within a week or two, the author finishes the article and sends the final version to the Editor. If after this period the article is not returned (or the editorial board is not informed of any delays) - the article is rejected.

Publication Frequency

Starting in 2023, this journal is published 2 times a year in February and August

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...

Reviewers List

Mayra S. Artiles

Anna Sverdlik

Jane McAdam

Charity W Law

Jeanet Sinding Bentzen

Hiroyuki Nakano

Anning Hu

Chang-Yau Hoon

Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi

David Mosse

Victor Roudometof
 

Wendy J. Gordon

Linda Steele

Dr. Ir. Syahrial Shaddiq, S.T., M.Eng., M.M., IPP., CF.NLP., C.NSP., C.HRA.

 
Ricky Santoso Muharam

Susiati Susiati
 
Dzaqiyatul Farikhah
 
Ulil Azmi

Zulkifli


Retna Dwi Estuningtyas


Sawaluddin Siregar


ESTI ROYANI


M. Januar Ibnu Adham

Publication Ethics

Ethics Statement & Publication Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: The author should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete a review of the manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Plagiarism Policy

All submitted papers will be checked off their similarity via plagiarism software.
When plagiarism is identified, the Editor in Chief responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the paper in agreement with the following guidelines:
Level of Plagiarism
1. Minor :
A short section of another article is plagiarized without any significant data or idea taken from the other paper
Action: A warning is given to the authors and a request to change the text and properly cite the original article is made
2. Intermediate:
A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized without proper citation to the original paper
Action: The submitted article is rejected, and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for one year
3. Severe:
A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized that involves reproducing original results or ideas presented in another publication
Action: The paper is rejected, and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles for five years.

If the second case of plagiarism by the same author(s) is identified, a decision on the measures to be enforced will be made by the Editorial board (Editor-in-Chief and Editorial members) with the Chair of the Editor in Chief. The author(s) might be forbidden to submit further articles forever.
This policy also applies to material reproduced from another publication by the same author(s). If an author uses text or figures that have previously been published, the corresponding paragraphs or figures should be identified and the previous publication referenced. It is understood that in case of a review paper or a paper of tutorial nature, much of the material was previously published.
The author should identify the source of the previously published material and obtain permission from the original author and the publisher. If an author submits a manuscript to International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science with significant overlap with a manuscript submitted to another journal simultaneously, and this overlap is discovered during the review process or after the publications of both papers, the editor of the other journal is notified, and the case is treated as a severe plagiarism case. Significant overlap means the use of identical or almost identical figures and identical or slightly modified text for one half or more of the paper. For self-plagiarism of less than one half of the paper but more than one-tenth of the paper, the case shall be treated as intermediate plagiarism. If self-plagiarism is confined to the methods section, the case shall be considered as minor plagiarism.

If an author uses some of his previously published material to clarify the presentation of new results, the previously published material shall be identified, and the difference to the present publication shall be mentioned. Permission to republish must be obtained from the copyright holder. In the case of a manuscript that was originally published in conference proceedings and then is submitted for publication in International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Science either in identical or in expanded form, the authors must identify the name of the conference proceedings and the date of the publication and obtain permission to republish from the copyright holder. The editor may decide not to accept this paper for publication.

However, an author shall be permitted to use material from an unpublished presentation, including visual displays, in a subsequent journal publication. In the case of a publication being submitted that was originally published in another language, the title, date, and journal of the original public