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 education and office administration. JIKAP published research and study results in office administration, communication, education, office information technology, human resource development, organizational behavior, public administration services, and 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.
How long does the verification process take?
Editors in 5 working days will respond to every manuscript submitted to JIKAP. 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 14 days, up to 1 month. 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 complicated to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, even if the existing reviewer's report gives complete confidence that the reviewer will apply the acceptance, rejection, or author's correction, only based on 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.
Reported by Reviewers
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.
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
JIKAP (e-ISSN: 2614-0349) is a peer-reviewed journal by Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Sebelas Maret. This statement elucidates the ethical conduct expected from all entities publishing an article in this journal, encompassing the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is derived from the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The following guidelines conform with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
Including an article in JIKAP is fundamental to establishing a cohesive and esteemed knowledge network. The quality of the work produced by authors and the institutions that provide support is directly manifested in this context. Peer-reviewed articles serve as a testament to the exemplification of the scientific methodology. Hence, it is imperative to establish a consensus regarding the norms and principles governing ethical conduct for all entities engaged in the publication process, including the author, editor, reviewer, publisher, and broader society. The University of Sebelas Maret, in its capacity as the publisher of JIKAP Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, is committed to fulfilling its obligations in overseeing the various stages of the publication process. It acknowledges and upholds its ethical obligations and other responsibilities associated with this role. The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education at the University of Sebelas Maret is dedicated to upholding the principle that advertising, reprinting, or any other form of commercial revenue does not influence or affect editorial decisions.
Publication Decisions:
The responsibility of determining the papers to be published in the journal lies with the editors of JIKAP. Determining the validity of the aforementioned work and its significance to researchers and readers should consistently guide such judgments. The editors are likely to adhere to the policies established by the journal's editorial board. They must comply with legal regulations concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors can consult with additional editors or reviewers during the decision-making process.
Duties of Authors:
1. Reporting Standards:
Authors of original research papers have to give a full account of their work and a fair evaluation of its importance. In addition, the submitted document must correctly explain the data it is based on. There must be enough information and citations to make it easy for others to copy the work. Inputting false information on purpose or fraudulently is unethical and totally inappropriate.
2. Data Access:
In cases deemed essential, authors are obligated to furnish the main data about the manuscript for the purpose of editorial evaluation.
3. Originality and Plagiarism:
The authors must verify the authenticity and originality of their published works. If the authors have incorporated the ideas or language of other individuals, the author must acknowledge and provide references to the original sources appropriately.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:
Publishing manuscripts that are essentially identical in nature in multiple journals or primary publications is considered unethical and unacceptable publishing conduct.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources:
It is imperative to ensure appropriate acknowledgement is given for the work of others. The writers must include citations for the articles that have influenced the work's attributes.
6. Authorship of the Paper:
Authorship, which means naming specific people as co-authors, should only go to people who contributed to the study's idea, design, execution, or interpretation. On the other hand, contributors or co-authors should only be named or noted for those who work on the substantive parts of a study project. It is up to the corresponding author to make sure that the work has only qualified co-authors. These people have seen and agreed to the final version of the work and its submission for publication.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Any financial or other significant potential conflicts of interest that could be construed as influencing the outcomes of their manuscript's interpretation must be disclosed by all Authors. In addition, it is imperative that all research funding be disclosed.
8. Fundamental errors in published works:
If an author finds a major mistake or inaccuracy in a published work, they should retract it and make the necessary changes by contacting the journal's editor or owner directly.
9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
The publication's author must state this clearly if any potentially harmful materials, methods, or equipment are used in the research.
Duties of Editors:
1. Fair Play:
A manuscript's intellectual substance should be evaluated independently of the authors' identities, including but not limited to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, and political beliefs.
2. Confidentiality:
If applicable, the editor and any editorial staff are obligated to keep confidential any and all material discovered in the manuscript that has been sent out to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Editors may not utilize unpublished material disclosed in the submitted work without the authors' permission.
4. Publication Decisions:
That decision about which study papers to publish lies with the editorial board of JIKAP. In the meantime, decisions should be based on the study's validity and importance to researchers and readers. The journal's editing policy and constitutional rules about libel, plagiarism, and breach of copyright can help the editors decide what to write. In addition, the editor may talk to other editors or reviewers before choosing.
5. Review of Manuscripts:
The editor is responsible for ensuring that the validity of each manuscript's content has been checked and for setting up and using peer review in a fair and smart way. The editor should also explain to the writers how peer review works and list the parts of the article reviewed by peers. Editors must choose influential peer reviewers for papers being considered for release by weeding out those without enough expertise and conflicts of interest.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review helps the editor decide what to publish, and editorial discussions help the authors improve their work.
2. Promptness:
If a chosen reviewer doesn't think they can properly look over the study work in a manuscript or know they can't do a review right away, they need to let the editor know and not continue the review process.
3. Standards of Objectivity:
Reviewers should be neutral; using their opinion is inappropriate, and they should be clear about their views and provide evidence to back them up.
4. Confidentiality:
All submitted works must be handled as confidential documents. Also, no one else should see or look at them unless the editor gives the green light.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
Individuals are obligated to keep any and all information gleaned from peer review in confidence and not use it for personal gain. In addition, reviewers are excused from evaluating papers in which they have a conflict of interest because of their ties to the authors, companies, or organizations.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should distinguish between related but uncited works in the literature. The proper reference should be used when a previously documented interpretation, conclusion, or statement is used in a description. Last but not least, reviewers must also draw the editor's attention to any similarities they see between the submitted paper and any previously published publications on the same topic.
Human Subject Protection
JIKAP mandates that all research using human subjects (e.g., surveys, sensory panels, or other involvement) adhere to all applicable laws, rules, and policies (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration) governing the use of human beings in research. The authors should specify that institutional review board (IRB) or comparable approval was acquired before the start of the trial, as well as the name of the IRB that was approved. According to local authority policy, the human object identification as a respondent (information source) is safely protected.
Author Fees
Author Fees
Article submission and Publication in JIKAP is free of charge.
Article Publication: 0.00 (IDR). No fees are incurred for article processing, submission, or reviewing the articles.
Libraries/Individuals can read and download any full-text articles free of charge.
Plagiarism Policy
Plagiarism Policy
The plagiarism detection process is conducted on all manuscripts submitted to JIKAP before their evaluation by an editor for editorial review.
JIKAP employs the 'Turnitin Software' to identify occurrences of text overlap and similarity within the papers submitted for publication.
How are manuscripts with plagiarism handled?
How the manuscripts that have plagiarism found are treated depends on how much plagiarism is found in them.
<15% plagiarism - The manuscript is assigned a manuscript ID and returned to the authors for content review.
15–30% plagiarism - The manuscript is returned to the authors for content amendment without being allocated a manuscript ID.
>30% plagiarism - The manuscript has been declined without undergoing an editorial review process. The authors are recommended to amend the paper's sections containing plagiarism and resubmit it as a new manuscript.
Retraction
The papers that were published in JIKAP will be taken down from the publication if:
- There is strong proof that the results can't be trusted, either because of a big mistake (like an incorrect calculation or an error in the experiment) or because they were made up (like fake data or images);
- It's an example of copying;
- The results have been published elsewhere before, but the sources weren't properly cited, the editor wasn't told, and there was no permission to republish or a reason given (this is called "redundant publication").
- It has information or content that isn't allowed to be used;
- There is a breach of copyright or another serious legal problem, such as libel or privacy;
- It reports a study that isn't ethical;
- It was only released because the peer review process was hacked or manipulated;
- The author(s) didn't come clean about a major competing interest (also called a "conflict of interest") that, in the editor's opinion, would have changed how the work was interpreted or how editors and peer reviewers made suggestions.
