Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan  is an open access, and peer-reviewed journal. Our main goal is to disseminate current and original articles based on research or critical thinking from researchers and practitioners on various social science, political science, and policy issues related to:

  1. National Defense
  2. Government Relations
  3. Democracy, Radicalism, and Terrorism
  4. Corporate Communication
  5. Nation Branding
  6. State Security
  7. Social Conflict Resolution
  8. Politic Governance
  9. Public Policy
  10. Marketing Communication
  11. Media and Journalism
  12. Broadcasting Industry
  13. Business Management
  14. Entrepreneurship
  15. Public Relations

 

Section Policies

Artikel

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Business Administration

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

International Relations

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Public Relations

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Communication Science

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Public Policy

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan will undergo a selection and assessment process by the Editorial Board to ensure their accordance with the writing guideline, focus, and scope, and that they are of excellent academic quality.  The manuscripts will be reviewed using the peer review method.

Desk Review. At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guideline, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.

Peer review. When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 4 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceed to this stage.

Reviewer’s decision. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:

  1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
  2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns
  3. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised
  4. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues

The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Editorial Board to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 4 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.  

Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Editorial Board to ensure that the author has revised it in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Editorial Board, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.

Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editorial Board will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as a print publication.

 

Publication Frequency

Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan published bi-annual (twice a year) in January and July.

 

Open Access Policy

Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan holds the principle that all research is for the benefit of mankind. Research is a product of an investment by society and therefore the results must be returned to all without borders or discrimination, serving society in a universal and transparent manner. 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. We understand that in this world everyone has an equal opportunity to seek, share and create knowledge. We hope writers join us in this open access concept.

 

 

 

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

 

Author Fees

All manuscripts submitted and published in Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan requires payment.

Article Publication: 400.000 (IDR) (approx. USD $26)

To support the cost of wide open access dissemination of research results, to manage the various costs associated with handling and editing of the submitted manuscripts, and the Journal management and publication in general, the authors or the author's institution is requested to pay a publication fee for each article accepted. Instructions for money transfer via bank transfer will be provided by the editor with the notification of acceptance for the accepted paper.

A waiver or partial waiver of author fees may be decided by the editor in case of lack of funding, excessive length of submitted manuscript or other sound reasons provided by the author during the submission. The author should clearly declare that he asks for a waiver in the comments to the Editor box during their submission. The waiver will have no effect on the review result of the paper. A waiver is most likely to be denied if it is not asked in this stage.

An author or group of authors who cannot afford the publication fee may be eligible for a partial waiver (max 15% discount) of publication fees. We do not want fees to prevent the publication of worthy work. The partial waiver is intended primarily for authors from low-income countries http://data.worldbank.org/income-level/LIC who are without funding. It is unlikely that a partial waiver will be granted to authors from established academic or research centres in the developed world. If you would like to apply for a fee partial waiver, you will need to email Principle Contact before submission with details about your research paper, such as author names and positions, institutions, funding and type of research. Please contact the Principle Contact for more information at [email protected]

 

Plagiarism and Publication Ethics

The following statements are based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan and its publisher, Faculty of Social Science and Political Sciences of Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Yogyakarta this journal follows the COPE. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

 

The following is a code of ethics for Paradigma authors, editors, and reviewers who are adapted from the Publications Ethics Committee (COPE). This ethic maintains integrity, accountability and scientific principles in the field of research and publications which must be adhered to.

 

Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Paradigma: Jurnal Masalah Sosial, Politik, dan Kebijakan Editorial Board using Turnitin applicaiton as plagiarism checker to screen all submitted papers with similarity index not more than 20%

 

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.

 

Duties of Authors

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Acknowledgement of Sources:
    Proper acknowledgement 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Publication Decisions:
    The editor board journal is responsible for deciding 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.
  5. Review of Manuscripts:
    The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organise and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. Standards of Objectivity:
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality:
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.