Journal of Islamic Philosophy and Contemporary Thought (JIPCT) is resolutely committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The journal adheres scrupulously to the principles and best practices articulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), thereby ensuring transparency, accountability, and rigor in the dissemination of knowledge. This commitment aligns seamlessly with the stringent ethical benchmarks requisite for journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, fostering uncompromised academic discourse in the realms of Islamic philosophy, hermeneutics, and contemporary intellectual inquiry.

All stakeholders in the publication process—encompassing authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher—are bound by an imperative to exercise unwavering probity, candor, and fiduciary diligence, thus preserving the foundational trust that undergirds scholarly exchange.

1. Duties of Editors

Editors bear ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the integrity, quality, and ethical probity of the publication pipeline. Editorial decisions shall repose exclusively upon the manuscript's intellectual merit, originality, lucidity, and pertinence to the journal's scope, affording equitable consideration to studies yielding null results or those contesting established paradigms. Editors must expeditiously rectify any errata or substantive flaws in published works, cataloguing such emendations in the table of contents and hyperlinking them to the original article in bibliographic repositories. Periodic audits of reviewer and editorial efficacy shall be conducted, with attendant data held in strict confidence. Editors are precluded from adjudicating manuscripts wherein personal conflicts exist, mandating recusal in favour of impartial surrogates. Upon ethical perturbations, recourse to COPE's procedural flowcharts and WAME's adjudicative rubrics shall be obtained, ensuring equitable process and dispassionate resolution. Editorial autonomy from proprietors or patrons remains inviolate: "Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial content of the journal... Owners should not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles."

2. Duties of Authors

Authors are enjoined to manifest uncompromising scholarly rectitude and ethical vigilance in the conception, elaboration, and tendering of manuscripts. All co-authors assume collective accountability for the opus's accuracy, quality, and ethical provenance, with a designated guarantor—typically the corresponding author—affirming plenary access to raw data and vouching for the fidelity of its analysis. Authorship criteria demand substantial intellectual input, substantive drafting, and ratification of the terminal draft; honorary attributions are anathema. Manuscripts must evince pristine originality, untainted by plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant dissemination, absent full cross-referencing. Meticulous attribution to antecedent influences is non-negotiable. Pertinent conflicts of interest—pecuniary, institutional, or ideational—warrant forthright disclosure. For inquiries implicating human subjects, archival records, or ethnographic modalities, authors must adduce documented approbation from a duly constituted institutional review board, alongside procurement of informed consent, consonant with the Declaration of Helsinki or analogous precepts. "All authors are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and ethics of the work, but one author must be identified who will reply if questions arise or more information is needed, and who will take responsibility for the work as a whole."

3. Duties of Reviewers

Peer reviewers constitute the bulwark of the journal's commitment to excellence, impartiality, and methodological exactitude. Selected for domain expertise and unencumbered by competing interests—financial, political, or doctrinal—reviewers shall furnish incisive, constructive, and punctual critiques, interrogating study design, interpretive validity, ethical moorings, and overall scholarly calibre. An impermeable veil of confidentiality shall enshroud evaluative proceedings; pre-publication disclosures are proscribed from retention, dissemination, or personal exploitation sans editorial sanction. Suspicions of malfeasance warrant confidential notification to the editor. Reviews must calibrate to amplify the manuscript's perspicuity and doctrinal heft: "The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology," and "The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct." In consonance with Scopus and Web of Science imperatives, the journal discloses its double-anonymised peer-review paradigm, employing no fewer than two independent arbiters per submission, with periodic audits of acceptance thresholds and reviewer proficiency.

4. Publisher’s Responsibilities

The publisher, Faculty of Ushuluddin and Philosophy, UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia, stands resolute in fortifying the editorial cadre's fealty to preeminent ethical canons. Unfettered editorial sovereignty is enshrined, impervious to commercial or ideological encroachments. Upon discernment of infractions—plagiaristic, contraventional, or adulterative—the publisher shall confer with editors to orchestrate remedial stratagems, inclusive of errata promulgation, retractions, or caveats of concern, in meticulous conformity with COPE and WAME protocols. The publisher avows scholarly autonomy, limpidness, and inclusivity, ensuring that ancillary revenues—such as advertising—exert no sway over content curation, with demarcations betwixt editorial and promotional spheres rigorously observed.

5. Allegations of Misconduct

Impugations of ethical dereliction—encompassing plagiarism, citationary manipulation, datum contrivance, authorship contretemps, or ideational misappropriation—shall precipitate a formal inquest, guided by COPE's algorithmic schemata and WAME's fact-finding imperatives. The Editor-in-Chief shall orchestrate initial triage, suspending publication pendente lite and upholding confidentiality. Implicated parties shall enjoy a temperate locus standi for rebuttal. Corroborated malfeasances shall elicit graduated sanctions—ranging from admonitory missives to manuscript interdiction, posthumous retraction, or institutional remonstrance—calibrated to the transgression's gravity. Retractions shall be conspicuously indexed and disseminated to bibliographic stewards, per ICMJE strictures. "Journals have an obligation to readers and patients to ensure that their published research is both accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard." Investigations persist irrespective of authorial withdrawal, with culpable editors or reviewers facing excision and reportage.

6. Research Ethics and Data Integrity

Authors assume custodial stewardship for the ethical husbandry of interlocutors and empirical artefacts. Probes entailing human engagement, archival exegeses, or philosophical dialectics mandate institutional review board sanction and informed assent elicitation, with anonymization rigorously enforced. "Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues." Datum must be limned with unerring fidelity, buttressed by antecedent power computations, quality assurances, and retention protocols facilitative of verificatory scrutiny. Authors are urged to tender repositories upon judicious requisition, consonant with reproducibility mandates for Scopus and Web of Science-indexed venues: "Good research should be well justified, well planned, and appropriately designed, so that it can properly address the research question. Statistical issues, including power calculations, should be considered early in study design."

7. Intellectual Property and Open Access Policy

JIPCT enshrines perspicuous strictures on intellectual suzerainty, proscribing plagiarism—the unattributed appropriation of ideational or lexical artefacts—and redundant dissemination sans cross-referential salve. "Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source." Authors must disclose antecedent or concurrent iterations at submission. As a plenary open-access conduit, JIPCT bestows unfettered, instantaneous promulgation of its corpus to catalyze transdisciplinary percolation of erudition. Authors retain proprietary dominion whilst conferring publication primacy under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), sanctioning nonproprietary appropriation, dissemination, and adaptation contingent upon scrupulous ascription to provenance and author.

8. Conflicts of Interest

All principals must tender unsparing disclosure of conflicts—pecuniary, institutional, or ideational—to preserve deliberative equipoise. Reviewers harbouring competing stakes are interdicted; editors with such encumbrances shall recuse. Authors shall limn funding origins, sponsor inputs, and affiliated opus. "There is no role for review of articles by individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the article (e.g. those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with special political or ideological agendas, etc.)." This transparency buttresses the journal's alignment with Scopus and Web of Science exigencies for untainted peer adjudication.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. https://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals