Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan (JESP) focuses on research papers relating to development economics and multidisciplinary concern to systemic problems in developing countries particularly using quantitative or theoretical work in which novelty is essential. JESP does not publish manuscripts in critical review and book review. Nevertheless, we accept in-depth studies of specific cases, events, or regions that are likely to bring more benefits on developing economics.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Determination of the article that would be published in the Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan (JESP) is carried out through double-blind peer review by considering two main aspects, namely: relevance and contribution of articles on the accounting and investment theory and practical development. Editors and reviewers would provide constructive feedback on the manuscript evaluation results to the author(s). The JESP Editor in Chief has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the JESP would be published. Detail review process is explained as the following:

  1. Submission of manuscript by author(s). The submission is only processed via online i.e. OJS of JESP.
  2. All submitted manuscripts are read by JESP Editor in Chief initially for desk evaluation (Point 2 and 3). In this stage the submitted manuscript would be checked whether it complies JESP author guidelines and template for submission, also whether the manuscript matches JESP focus and scope. If appropriate, the next process would be carried out, and if not, we would reject the manuscript so that it could be submitted to another journal.
  3. The submitted manuscript would be checked with Turnitin (similarity check). If the level of similarity is more than 15%, the manuscripts would be rejected promptly without substantive review by section editor and peer reviewer. The submitted manuscripts that passed this stage would be sent to section editor.
  4. The submitted manuscript would be reviewed by the assigned section editor to find out whether it contributes sufficiently to the development of science and practice in the field of accounting and investment. Manuscripts with insignificant novelty are rejected in this stage. While the manuscript that qualifies would be proceeded to the substantive review stage by two people namely a section editor and a peer reviewer.
  5. Once substantive review process is finished, the JESP Editor in Chief then make a decision based on the section editor's and  reviewer’s recommendation with several decision possibilities as the following: (1) rejected = the manuscript is not considered for publication in JESP due to several reasons such as the manuscript has no significant novelty and contribution, the manuscript has been prepared poorly, very similar study was found, etc.; (2) accepted with major revision = the manuscript requires substantial revisions prior to publication. It might associate with state of the art, novelty, significance of the study, methodology, and etc. The editor would give four to 12 weeks to complete the revisions; (3) accepted with minor revision = the manuscript needs few revisions but not substantial prior to publication. Usually, it relates with JESP author guidelines compliance. The editor would give one to four weeks to complete the revisions; (4) accepted without revision = the manuscript would be published without any revisions. However, proofreading to the manuscript still would be conducted.
  6. The submitted manuscript that is accepted with revisions (minor or major) would get comments (feedback) from section editor and peer reviewer and would be returned to the author(s) for revisions.
  7. The author(s) is/are given certain time to complete manuscript revisions in accordance with the status of manuscript i.e. accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision (refer to explanation about decision possibilities above). Extra time to complete the revisions should be asked to the JESP Editor in Chief via email (jesp@umy.ac.id). If the author(s) does/do not submit the revised manuscript until the due date and no notification sent to JESP editorial team, then the author(s) is/are deemed to resign. It is important to note that revisions submissions should be accompanied with Author(s) responses form.
  8. Manuscript that has gone through final revisions and got acceptance would be published in the JESP in the edition determined by the JESP Editor in Chief. The author(s) might ask the Editor in Chief if he/she/they prefer(s) to publish his/her/their article in specific editions (volume and number). For this purpose, the author(s) must submit the request to the JESP Editor in Chief via email (jesp@umy.ac.id).

NOTE:

  • The manuscript review process for desk evaluation (point 2 and 3) takes one week in maximum. Manuscript that passes this stage can be seen from its status in OJS that is changed from "Awaiting Assignment" to "In Review". Meanwhile, substantive review by section editor and reviewer usually takes four to eight (8) weeks (point 4). This review period depends on the editors and reviewers' duration in reviewing the manuscript. If the author(s) does not get confirmation from the JESP for a long time, the author(s) can confirm by email at jesp@umy.ac.id or dyah.wardani@umy.ac.id

 

 

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.

This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative

Hasil gambar untuk Budapest Open Access Initiative  

Budapest Open Access Initiative

An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.

For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature. But even in these limited collections, many different initiatives have shown that open access is economically feasible, that it gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature, and that it gives authors and their works vast and measurable new visibilityreadership, and impact. To secure these benefits for all, we call on all interested institutions and individuals to help open up access to the rest of this literature and remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way. The more who join the effort to advance this cause, the sooner we will all enjoy the benefits of open access.

The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to important research findings. There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

While  the peer-reviewed journal literature should be accessible online without cost to readers, it is not costless to produce. However, experiments show that the overall costs of providing open access to this literature are far lower than the costs of traditional forms of dissemination. With such an opportunity to save money and expand the scope of dissemination at the same time, there is today a strong incentive for professional associations, universities, libraries, foundations, and others to embrace open access as a means of advancing their missions. Achieving open access will require new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms, but the significantly lower overall cost of dissemination is a reason to be confident that the goal is attainable and not merely preferable or utopian.

To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two complementary strategies. 

I.  Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.

II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.


Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature is the goal. Self-archiving (I.) and a new generation of open-access journals (II.) are the ways to attain this goal. They are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about by markets or legislation. While we endorse the two strategies just outlined, we also encourage experimentation with further ways to make the transition from the present methods of dissemination to open access. Flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation to local circumstances are the best ways to assure that progress in diverse settings will be rapid, secure, and long-lived.

The Open Society Institute, the foundation network founded by philanthropist George Soros, is committed to providing initial help and funding to realize this goal. It will use its resources and influence to extend and promote institutional self-archiving, to launch new open-access journals, and to help an open-access journal system become economically self-sustaining. While the Open Society Institute's commitment and resources are substantial, this initiative is very much in need of other organizations to lend their effort and resources.

We invite governments, universities, libraries, journal editors, publishers, foundations, learned societies, professional associations, and individual scholars who share our vision to join us in the task of removing the barriers to open access and building a future in which research and education in every part of the world are that much more free to flourish.

February 14, 2002
Budapest, Hungary

Leslie Chan: Bioline International
Darius Cuplinskas
: Director, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Michael Eisen
: Public Library of Science
Fred Friend
: Director Scholarly Communication, University College London
Yana Genova
: Next Page Foundation
Jean-Claude Guédon: University of Montreal
Melissa Hagemann
: Program Officer, Information Program, Open Society Institute
Stevan Harnad: Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Rick Johnson
: Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
Rima Kupryte: Open Society Institute
Manfredi La Manna
: Electronic Society for Social Scientists 
István Rév: Open Society Institute, Open Society Archives
Monika Segbert: eIFL Project consultant 
Sidnei de Souza
: Informatics Director at CRIA, Bioline International
Peter Suber
: Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College & The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
Jan Velterop
: Publisher, BioMed Central

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan (JESP) publishes the new editions every April and October. By October 2016, JESP has published both printed (book) and electronic (PDF) versions. Electronic articles are accessible openly on the web page: http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/esp and printed versions are available for sale.

 

Author Fees

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan is a journal publications that are not oriented to profit. Therefore, for the publication process, JESP regarding certain costs, namely:

  1. The cost of article submission IDR 0, - ($ 0.-)
  2. Processing Fees for the publication of articles received IDR 1,500,000.- (Indonesian) and USD 100 (Non-Indonesian)

 

Plagiarism Policy

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan apply Zero tolerance towards plagiarism and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when plagiarism is identified in an article that is submitted for publication in JESP.

Definition: Plagiarism involves the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Policy: Papers must be original, unpublished, and not pending publication elsewhere. Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be clearly identified as different from the present original text by (1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) identification of the source.

Any text of an amount exceeding fair use standards (herein defined as more than two or three sentences or the equivalent thereof) or any graphic material reproduced from another source requires permission from the copyright holder and, if feasible, the original author(s) and also requires identification of the source; e.g., previous publication.

All submitted papers will be checked of their similarity by Turnitin.

When plagiarism is identified, the Principal Editor 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:

 Similarity level

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan practices Zero tolerance towards plagiarism. We use Turnitin to evaluate the similarity index and then the editor decides the case of possible plagiarism (Similarity report will be provided to the author). Editorial board has passed the following actions:
1. Similarity Index above 40%: Article Rejected (due to poor citation and/or poor paraphrasing, article outright rejected, NO RESUBMISSION accepted).
2. Similarity Index (16-39%): Send to the author for improvement (provide correct citations to all places of similarity and do a good paraphrasing even if the citation is provided).
3. Similarity index equal or Less than 15%:  Accepted or citation improvement may be required (proper citations must be provided to all outsourced texts).
In cases 2 and 3: The authors should revise the article carefully, add required citations, and do a good paraphrasing to outsourced text. And resubmit the article with a new Turnitin report showing NO PLAGIARISM and similarity less than 10%.

Every manuscript that submitted into JESP will be scanned using turnitin (similarity check).

 

R-W-C-R-R Policy

We understand that the authors have worked carefully in preparing manuscripts, and we have carried out peer-review processes. However, sometimes there is the potential for published articles to be withdrawn or even deleted for scientific reasons. It should not be done lightly and can only occur under extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed will be carried out with strict standards to maintain confidence in the authority of its electronic archives. It is our commitment and policy to maintain the integrity and completeness of important scientific records for researchers and librarians’ archives.

Article Retraction

JESP is committed to keep its responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, therefore on occasion, it is necessary to retract articles. Articles may be retracted if:

  • There is major scientific error that would invalidate the conclusions of the article, for example where there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
  • There are ethical issues such as plagiarism (appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit including those obtained through confidential review of others' manuscripts) or inappropriate authorship.

In order to ensure that retractions are handled according to publication best practice, and in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines, JESP adopts the following retraction process:

  • An article requiring potential retraction is brought to the attention of the journal editor.
  • The journal editor should follow the step-by-step guidelines according to the COPE flowcharts (including evaluating a response from the author of the article in question).
  • Before any action is taken, the editor's findings should be sent to the Advisory Editor in Chief.
  • The final decision as to whether to retract is then communicated to the author and, if necessary, any other relevant bodies, such as the author's institution on occasion.
  • The retraction statement is then posted online and published in the next available issue of the journal. 

Note that if authors retain copyright for an article this does not mean they automatically have the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is of paramount importance and COPE’s Retraction Guidelines still apply in such cases.

Article Withdrawal

The author is not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts, because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscript, and works invested by the publisher. For attention, before the author submits the manuscript through our OJS, the author is obliged to approve the checklist that we provide.

If authors still request withdrawal of their manuscripts when the manuscripts are still in the peer-reviewing process, authors will be punished with paying $200 per manuscript, as withdrawal penalty to the publisher. However, it is unethical to withdraw a submitted manuscripts from one journal if accepted by another journal. The withdrawal of manuscripts after the manuscripts are accepted for publication, author will be punished by paying US$500 per manuscript. Withdrawal of manuscripts are only allowed after withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the Publisher.

If author don't agree to pay the penalty, the authors and their affiliations will be blacklisted for publication in this journal. Even, their previously published articles will be removed from our online system.

Article Correction

JESP should consider issuing a correction if:

  • A small part of an otherwise reliable publication reports flawed data or proves to be misleading, especially if this is the result of honest error.
  • The Author or Contributor list is incorrect (e.g. a deserving Author has been omitted or someone who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Corrections to peer-reviewed content fall into one of three categories:

  • Publisher correction (erratum): to notify readers of an important error made by publishing/journal staff (usually a production error) that has a negative impact on the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.
  • Author correction (corrigendum): to notify readers of an important error made by the Authors which has a negative impact on the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.
  • Addendum: an addition to the article by its Authors to explain inconsistencies, to expand the existing work, or otherwise explain or update the information in the main work.

The decision whether a correction should be issued is made by the Editor(s) of a journal, sometimes with advice from Reviewers or Editorial Board members. Handling Editors will contact the Authors of the paper concerned with a request for clarification, but the final decision about whether a correction is required and if so which type rests with the Editors.

Article Removal

In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove a published article from our online platform. This will only happen if an article is clearly defamatory, or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect that it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk. In such circumstances, while the metadata (i.e. title and author information) of the article will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating that the article has been removed for legal reasons.

Article Replacement

In cases where an article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk, the Authors of the original paper may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. Under such circumstances, the above procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the article retraction notice will contain a link to the corrected re-published article together with a history of the document.