Publication Ethnics

The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal Management of Education: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam. It is necessary 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 and the publisher.

This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

Integrity and Accuracy
Authors must present original and accurate research findings. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable. Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.

Originality and Plagiarism
Manuscripts must be entirely the authors’ original work. Any use of words, data, or ideas from others must be properly cited. Plagiarism in all its forms is considered unethical and is unacceptable. The editorial team uses Turnitin to ensure similarity remains below 20%.

Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide raw data during editorial review and must retain such data for a reasonable time after publication for transparency and verification.

Ethical Research Standards
All research involving human or animal subjects must adhere to institutional and international ethical standards, with appropriate approvals documented.

Disclosure of Conflicts
Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence the interpretation of their work. All funding sources must be clearly acknowledged.

Authorship and Acknowledgement
Authorship should reflect those who significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co-authors must approve the final version and agree to submission. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.

Redundant Publication
Submitting the same research to more than one journal or publishing substantially similar work without proper citation and justification is considered unethical.

Correction of Errors
If a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered after publication, authors must notify the editor promptly for correction or retraction.

2. Responsibilities of Editors

Publication Decisions
Editors are responsible for selecting articles based on scholarly merit, originality, and relevance. These decisions should be made fairly and independently of commercial or personal interests.

Fair Evaluation
Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on intellectual content, without bias related to the authors’ gender, race, religion, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political views.

Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and only disclose information as necessary during the peer review process.

Conflict of Interest
Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest and must not use unpublished material for personal research without the author’s explicit written consent.

Transparency and Integrity
Editors must ensure the integrity of the academic record and must be willing to issue corrections, clarifications, or retractions when needed.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers support editorial decisions by providing constructive evaluations that help improve the manuscript’s quality and academic contribution.

Promptness
If a reviewer is unable to complete a timely review, they should inform the editor and decline the assignment.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential and not disclosed to others unless authorized by the editor.

Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively with clear, reasoned feedback. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Identification of Sources
Reviewers should identify missing relevant citations and inform the editor of any ethical concerns or substantial overlap with other works.

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline to review manuscripts where such conflicts exist.

4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, UIN Antasari Banjarmasin, as the publisher of Management of Education: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, takes ethical publishing seriously. The publisher supports editors in ethical decision-making and ensures that editorial decisions are free from commercial influence. It provides mechanisms for dealing with errors, misconduct, or ethical disputes, and ensures the permanent availability and preservation of published content through reliable digital archiving.

 

Generative AI Policy

Management of Education: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam (MoE) recognizes that the advent of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools and extensive language models offers unprecedented opportunities for enhancing scholarly communication while simultaneously posing new risks to research integrity, transparency, and accountability. Drawing upon the STM Association's 2023 White Paper on Generative AI in Scholarly Communications and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, MoE hereby establishes a comprehensive policy governing the use of GenAI across all stages of manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial decision-making, and post-publication activities. This policy is designed to ensure that the benefits of AI, such as increased efficiency in language polishing and data synthesis, are harnessed in ways that preserve the highest standards of scholarly rigor, ethical responsibility, and intellectual ownership.

Acceptable AI Use and Responsibilities for Authors

Authors submitting to MoE may employ GenAI tools for basic linguistic and formatting tasks such as grammar correction, style consistency, and reference formatting without explicit disclosure, provided that such use does not alter the work's intellectual content or conceptual contributions. However, any deployment of GenAI that substantively shapes the research narrative, generates novel textual passages, performs data analysis, creates illustrative figures, or otherwise influences the study's conceptualization must be transparently reported. Such disclosures should appear in a dedicated "AI Contributions" subsection within the Methods or Acknowledgments, specifying the tool, version, provider, and the precise nature of its input and output. Under no circumstances may GenAI systems be credited as authors, as they lack the legal personhood and ethical capacity to assume responsibility for scholarly claims. Responsibility for all human-written or AI-assisted content remains with the human authors, who must verify the accuracy, originality, and appropriate citation of all AI-generated elements.

Editorial and Peer Review Protocols

Editorial staff and peer reviewers are likewise bound by strict guidelines to safeguard confidentiality and uphold ethical review standards. MoE prohibits using public GenAI platforms for plagiarism detection, confidentiality screening, or automated decision-making, given the opacity of their training data and uncertain data retention policies. Instead, editors may engage specialized, publisher-approved AI services under formal contracts, ensuring robust safeguards for manuscript confidentiality, intellectual property, and data security. All final editorial decisions must rest on human judgment; AI outputs may inform but must not supplant the expertise of editors or reviewers. Reviewers are expressly forbidden from uploading unpublished manuscripts to public AI platforms or using such platforms to draft reports to maintain the review process's integrity and confidentiality. Should a reviewer suspect undisclosed substantive AI use by authors, they should flag these concerns to the handling editor, referencing COPE's guidance on suspected AI misuse in peer review.

Scholarly Transparency

MoE calls on readers and the broader scholarly community to respect the boundaries of GenAI use. Readers should refrain from submitting full-text MoE articles to public AI models to protect authors' intellectual property and preserve the confidentiality of unpublished data. Published articles incorporating substantive AI-assisted contributions will carry a clear footnote indicating the extent of AI involvement, enabling readers to assess the provenance and reliability of the findings in context.

Future Revisions

Compliance with this policy will be monitored through periodic audits of published content and implementing COPE's flowcharts to address ethical breaches. Instances of undisclosed or inappropriate AI use may trigger MoE misconduct procedures, potentially leading to corrections, retractions, or other remedial actions. Recognizing the rapidly evolving nature of GenAI technologies, MoE will review and update this policy at least biennially or in response to significant technological or ethical developments. Through these measures, MoE reaffirms its commitment to fostering innovation while upholding the core values of transparency, accountability, and scholarly excellence.