Publication Ethics

[Updated 1 May 2026]

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

This statement explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication process of Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling, including the authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, peer reviewers, and the publisher, namely State Islamic University (UIN) Salatiga, managed by the Islamic Educational Counseling and Guidance Study Programme. Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling is an international electronic peer-reviewed journal committed to upholding high standards of ethical conduct for all parties involved in the publication of scientific articles.

All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If the Editor approves submissions, peer-reviewers will consider submissions whose identities remain anonymous to the authors.

The publication ethics is a commitment that draws up some moral limitations and responsibilities of research journals.

Pamomong adheres to a strict code of practice to ensure that all parties involved in the publishing process (authors, reviewers, and editors) maintain a high standard of ethical behavior throughout the process and that malpractice is dealt with in a timely and responsible manner. The journal's code of practice is influenced by guidelines made available by the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (RistekDikti) of the Republic of Indonesia, emphasizing ethics in publishing and avoiding scientific malpractice. In addition, the journal's code of practice is influenced by guidelines made available by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is observed by the journal's Editorial Board. See COPE Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers at https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

The major principles of peer review by COPE are restated in the following.

Duties of Reviewers

Peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess on time
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is essentially a reciprocal endeavor and undertake their fair share of reviewing promptly.
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Expectations during the peer-review process

On being approached to review, Peer reviewers should:

  • respond in a reasonable time frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  • declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they can assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
  • only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident, they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing for interests (for example, personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions, and the journals' criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
  • ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
  • not agree to review a manuscript to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
  • decline to review if they cannot provide a fair and unbiased review.
  • decline to review if they have been involved with any work in the manuscript or its reporting.
  • decline to review if asked to review a manuscript similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
  • decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g., it uses open to review and releases the reviewers' names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal's review policies.

During review

Peer reviewers should:

  • notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover a conflicting interest that wasn't apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased review.
  • refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
  • read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files), and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is unclear and requesting any missing or incomplete items need to carry out a full review.
  • notify the journal as soon as possible if they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn't wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process.
  • keep all manuscripts and review details confidential.
  • contact the journal if circumstances arise that prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if they are still asked to do so.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
  • ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or intellectual biases.
  • not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.

When preparing the report

Peer reviewers should:

  • bear in mind that the Editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
  • make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
  • follow journals' instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, how this should be organized.
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
  • not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
  • be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
  • remember it is the authors' paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their preferred style if it is sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, necessary.
  • be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
  • make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.
  • not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest another person has done the review.
  • not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
  • not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors' work mentioned in the manuscript.
  • ensure their comments and recommendations for the Editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report.
  • confidential comments to the Editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.
  • not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work merely to increase the reviewer's (or their associates') citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
  • determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing.
  • if they are the Editor handling a manuscript and decide to provide a review of that manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review if the journal operates blind review; providing a review for a manuscript being handled by another editor at the journal can be treated as any other review.

Expectations post review

Peer reviewers should:

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
  • respond promptly if a journal contacts about matters related to their manuscript review and provide the information required.
  • contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after submitting their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • try to accommodate journal requests to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.

Duties of Editors

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:

  • strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • constantly improve the journal;
  • ensure the quality of the material they publish;
  • champion freedom of expression;
  • maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
  • always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Relations with readers

  • Readers should be informed about who has funded research and the role of the funders in the research.

Relations with authors

  • Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
  • Editors' decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality, and clarity, and the study's relevance to the journal's remit.
  • A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
  • Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
  • Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
  • Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
  • New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish recommendations made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.

Relations with reviewers

  • Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer to or link to this code.
  • Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers' identities are protected — unless they have an open review the system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

The peer-review process

Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf  and

https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

Authors Responsibility

The requirements for publishing in this journal are:

  • All named authors must have contributed to the writing of the paper.
  • Papers must not contain substantial duplication of research published elsewhere, although papers referring to new aspects or interpretations of research published elsewhere are acceptable.
  • Authors must confirm that the paper, or portions of it, has not been submitted for publication elsewhere. Where overlap exists with other papers, the authors should declare this in a note to the Editor (notes to the Editor can be included during the online submission process).
  • Authors are responsible for ensuring they have complied with their countries' and institutions' legal and ethical requirements and that they have secured all the necessary ethics approvals.
  • Authors must ensure that reports of their research as contained in the paper they submit are accurate descriptions of the research and that no falsification of procedures, data, or outcomes is included. Authors must be willing to provide access to the data on which the paper is based on a reasonable request.
  • If authors become aware of errors or inaccuracies in their work during the review process or after the publication of a paper, they must inform the Editor immediately and be prepared to provide a statement of retraction or correction.
  • Authors must declare the source of any financial support that has contributed to the research discussed in the paper or to the writing of the paper (such a declaration can be made as part of the online submission process but is usually also included in the acknowledgment section at the end of the paper).
  • Authors must declare as part of the submission process any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the paper or the process of publication.
  • Authors must seriously avoid misconduct in research, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others.

Ethical Oversight and Human Participants Policy

Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling is committed to ensuring that all research involving human participants is conducted ethically, responsibly, and in accordance with recognized ethical standards. Research submitted to the journal must respect the dignity, rights, safety, privacy, and well-being of all participants.

Authors conducting research involving human participants, including students, teachers, counselors, clients, parents, school communities, children, adolescents, or vulnerable groups, must ensure that the research has been reviewed and approved by an appropriate ethics committee, institutional review board, or authorized institutional body when required.

For studies involving human participants, authors must clearly state in the manuscript that ethical approval was obtained, including the name of the approving institution or ethics committee, approval number, and date of approval where applicable. If ethical approval was not required, authors must provide a clear explanation in the manuscript.

Authors must obtain informed consent from all research participants before data collection. For children, adolescents, students under legal age, or other vulnerable participants, informed consent must be obtained from parents, guardians, schools, or relevant authorized parties, along with participant assent when appropriate.

Authors must ensure that participation in the research is voluntary and that participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any stage without negative consequences. Participants must be informed about the purpose of the study, research procedures, potential risks and benefits, data use, confidentiality protection, and publication plans.

The confidentiality and privacy of participants must be protected. Authors must not disclose names, identities, personal information, school identities, counseling records, interview transcripts, photographs, or other identifiable data without explicit permission. Data must be anonymized or de-identified whenever possible.

Research involving counseling services, psychological conditions, religious experiences, educational problems, minors, vulnerable groups, or sensitive personal data must be conducted with special ethical care. Authors must ensure that the research does not harm participants emotionally, socially, academically, spiritually, or psychologically.

The journal reserves the right to request evidence of ethical approval, informed consent, institutional permission, or other ethical documentation during the editorial and peer-review process. Manuscripts that fail to meet ethical requirements may be rejected, returned for clarification, corrected, or subjected to further editorial action in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling upholds transparency, accountability, confidentiality, and integrity in the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly publishing. GenAI tools may be used only to support limited technical aspects of manuscript preparation, such as language editing, grammar correction, translation assistance, formatting assistance, and readability improvement.

Authors are not permitted to use GenAI tools to fabricate data, create false references, manipulate research findings, generate unsupported academic claims, replace scholarly analysis, or produce misleading academic content. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of all content submitted to the journal.

Any use of GenAI tools in preparing the manuscript must be disclosed by the authors in the manuscript under the heading “Declaration of Generative AI Use”. The declaration must include the name of the tool, the purpose of use, and confirmation that the authors have reviewed, edited, and verified all AI-assisted content.

GenAI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work, approve the final version, or be accountable for research integrity. Authorship is limited to human contributors who make substantial scholarly contributions and accept responsibility for the manuscript.

Editors and reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, review reports, confidential editorial correspondence, author data, or any privileged information into GenAI tools or external AI platforms. This restriction is intended to protect confidentiality, intellectual property, author privacy, and the integrity of the peer-review process.

If the editorial team identifies suspected misuse of GenAI, including fabricated references, unverifiable content, undisclosed AI-generated material, manipulated analysis, or breach of confidentiality, the manuscript may be rejected, returned for correction, retracted, or subjected to further editorial investigation in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

Complaints and Appeals Policy

Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling provides a fair, transparent, and accountable mechanism for handling complaints and appeals related to editorial decisions, peer-review processes, publication ethics, editorial conduct, reviewer conduct, or published articles.

Complaints may include concerns regarding editorial procedures, peer-review delays, reviewer conduct, editor conduct, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, correction requests, or post-publication issues. Appeals may be submitted by authors who believe that an editorial decision was affected by a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, reviewer bias, conflict of interest, or insufficient consideration of relevant scholarly evidence. Disagreement with the editorial decision alone is not sufficient reason for an appeal.

All complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing to the official journal email:

[email protected]

The subject line should clearly state one of the following:

Complaint regarding [Manuscript ID/Article Title]
or
Appeal regarding Editorial Decision [Manuscript ID/Article Title]

The complaint or appeal should include the complainant’s or appellant’s name, affiliation, manuscript ID or article details, a clear explanation of the issue, supporting evidence or relevant documentation, and the expected resolution or corrective action.

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must submit their appeal within 14 calendar days after receiving the editorial decision. Appeals submitted after this period may not be considered, except under exceptional circumstances. Complaints related to published articles, ethical concerns, or editorial conduct may be submitted at any time.

The editorial office will acknowledge receipt of the complaint or appeal within 5 working days. The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the complaint or appeal falls within the scope of this policy. If the complaint or appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the case will be handled by another senior editor or an independent member of the editorial board.

Appeals regarding editorial decisions may be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, relevant editorial board member, or an independent reviewer when necessary. The journal may seek additional expert opinion if the appeal involves methodological, ethical, or subject-specific concerns.

The journal will aim to provide a written response within 30 working days after receiving the complaint or appeal. Complex cases may require additional time, and the complainant or appellant will be informed if an extension is needed.

Possible outcomes may include upholding the original editorial decision, reconsidering the manuscript for further review, requesting additional review or expert assessment, issuing a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction for published articles, or taking appropriate editorial or ethical action in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

The final decision will be communicated in writing through the official journal email or the OJS platform. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial committee is final.

All complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially, fairly, and without discrimination. The journal ensures that complainants, appellants, authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the process are treated respectfully and objectively.

Submitting a complaint or appeal will not result in any retaliatory action against the author, reviewer, or complainant. However, complaints or appeals submitted in bad faith, containing abusive language, false information, or repeated unfounded claims may not be processed further.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal will take appropriate editorial action when errors, inaccuracies, ethical concerns, or publication misconduct are identified before or after publication.

Authors are required to inform the Editor immediately if they discover significant errors, inaccuracies, or ethical issues in their submitted or published work. The editorial team will assess the issue and determine the appropriate action based on the nature and severity of the problem.

A correction may be issued when an error is identified in a published article but the overall findings and conclusions remain valid. Corrections may include factual errors, author information errors, affiliation errors, funding information errors, or other minor inaccuracies that do not invalidate the article.

A retraction may be issued when the findings of an article are unreliable due to research misconduct, data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, serious methodological error, or other major violations of publication ethics.

An expression of concern may be issued when the editorial team receives credible concerns about a published article but the investigation is still ongoing or the available evidence is inconclusive. This notice is intended to alert readers while the matter is being reviewed.

All requests or concerns related to corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern must be submitted to the official journal email:

[email protected]

The submission should include the article title, author name(s), publication details, a clear explanation of the issue, and supporting evidence or documentation. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the editorial board or relevant experts when necessary, will review the case and determine the appropriate editorial action.

The journal will follow recognized publication ethics principles, including COPE guidance, in handling corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern. Any correction, retraction, or expression of concern will be published transparently and linked to the original article whenever possible.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Pamomong: Journal of Islamic Educational Counseling requires all authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial board members to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may influence the submission, review, editorial decision, or publication process.

A conflict of interest may include, but is not limited to, financial relationships, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, academic competition, professional commitments, funding arrangements, ideological interests, or other circumstances that could affect objectivity, fairness, or impartiality.

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest during submission and in the manuscript. This includes funding sources, institutional support, sponsor involvement, personal relationships, or any other condition that may influence the research process, interpretation of findings, or presentation of conclusions.

Reviewers must decline a review assignment if they have a conflict of interest with the author(s), institution, research topic, funding body, or manuscript content. Reviewers must immediately inform the editorial team if a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the review process.

Editors and editorial board members must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict exists, the manuscript will be assigned to another editor or editorial board member who has no competing interest in the submission.

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may result in editorial action, including manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other actions in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policy.

Authors may include the following statement in the manuscript:

Conflict of Interest Statement:
The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

If a conflict exists, authors should provide a clear statement explaining the nature of the conflict.

Conflict of Interest Statement:
The author(s) declare the following potential conflict(s) of interest: [explain the conflict of interest clearly].