Focus and Scope
JIKAP- Journal of Information and Office Administration Communication aims to establish scientific communication between researchers, educators, and practitioners of office administration. JIKAP accommodates aspirations, innovations, and scientific development in the fields of education and office administration.
JIKAP published the results of research and study in office administration, communication, education, office information technology, human resource development, organizational behavior, public administration services, management information systems.
Section Policies
Articles
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Peer review is encouraged to ensure only good science is published. It is an objective way to ensure good scientific publications. Our reviewers play an important role in maintaining JIKAP's standards.
Preliminary evaluation of the manuscript
All submitted manuscripts are first checked by one of the editors-in-chief. It should consist of the original text, the results of the plagiarism check, and the manuscript self-assessment form. Those meeting the minimum requirements are typically submitted to at least one expert for evaluation.
Type of peer review
JIKAP uses a "single-blind" review. In this case, the reviewer remains anonymous to the author throughout and after the review process, but the identity of the author is also unknown to the reviewer.
Judges are chosen in this way
Where possible, evaluators were matched to jobs based on their skills. Our expert database is constantly updated, so we welcome suggestions from authors, even if non-binding recommendations are not used.
Reported by the referee
Reviewers were asked to evaluate manuscripts as follows:
• Original ideas and methods
• Methodologically sound
• Results are clearly presented and conclusions supported
• Accurately and comprehensively correspond to previous related work
• Adherence to appropriate ethical guidelines, especially regarding plagiarism although language corrections are not part of the peer review process, reviewers are encouraged to suggest language and stylistic corrections to the manuscript. In the final round, editors check for linguistic and stylistic correctness and can suggest or make corrections during this phase. In rare cases, manuscripts may be returned to authors for complete language and stylistic corrections.
How long does the verification process take?
The duration of the review process depends on the reviewer's response. At JIKAP, the duration of the first round of referring process is usually 17 days, up to 3 months. Additional opinions may be sought if the judge's statements contradict each other or the report is unnecessarily delayed. On the rare occasion that it is very difficult to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, even if the existing reviewer's report gives full confidence that the reviewer will apply, the acceptance, reject, or author's correction. Only on the basis of expert opinion, and at the discretion of the publisher. Editor decisions are usually communicated to authors through reviewer recommendations, including verbatim comments. Revised manuscripts are usually sent to the original reviewers for peer review. You can then request another review.
Final report
Authors will be notified of the final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, along with the reviewers' recommendations, including verbatim comments (if necessary).
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
Plagiarism Checker
The article that can be reviewed by editor board after completing the attachment of plagiarism checker and stated that article at least 80% is origin. The following are the tools of checker:
- Plagiarisma
- Duplicity-Checker
- Turnitin
- Plagiarism Checker
- Other tools of plagiarism
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed 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.
Department of Office Administration Education Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Sebelas Maret University as publisher of JIKAP takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing 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.
Publication decisions
The editor of the JIKAP 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.
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.
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.
