Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Socio Religia (JSR) invites scientists, researchers, and students to contribute their research related to the fields of sociology of religion, such as religious society, multicultural society, Conflict, gender, social development, family and relationship, democracy, social movement, urban and rural society, Pesantren Sociology, social psychology and interfaith social relations either textual or field research with a social perspective, especially in theoretical framework of sociology of religion.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The Journal Socio Religia is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Jurnal Socio Religia for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of  competence to the paper. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility for the papers. The peer review at Jurnal Socio Religia proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is carried out via an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). But in order to facilitate authors, Jurnal Socio Religia temporarily also accepts paper submissions by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted paper is first assessed by the Jurnal Socio Religia. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to measure the similarity index which leads to plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief 

The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

4. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process at Jurnal Socio Religia involves a community of experts who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews.  The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity.  The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

 5. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer, when he or she declines to review.

6. Review is Conducted

The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

 7. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

8. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

9. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. Suppose the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision. In that case, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

 After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.

If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.

 

 

Open Access Policy

Jurnal Socio Religia  is committed to promoting the broadest possible access to the published research and ensuring that it can be freely read, downloaded, copied, distributed, printed, searched, or linked to in full text, used as data for software, or utilised for any other lawful purpose without financial, legal, or technical barriers. 

All articles publish in Jurnal Socio Religia are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY SA 4.0). This licence allows others to share and adapt the work, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated. 

Key Points of Our Open Access Policy: 

  1. Immediate Open Access: All articles are freely available to the public immediately upon publication, without any embargo period. 
  2. Author Rights: Authors retain copyright to their work by publishing in jurnal Socio Religia, authors grant the journal the right to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
  3. Reuse and Redistribution: Articles can be reused and redistributed for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as proper attribution is given to the ariginal work.
  4. Accesibility: we ensure that the full text of all published articles is available in pdf format to the enhance eccessibility and ease of use. 
  5. Transparency: Licensing terms are clearly indicated on the website and within the full text of all published articles. This includes a link to the reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License terms.
  6. No Registration Required: Readers are not required to register to access any part of the journal content.

Jurnal Socio Religia adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing as outlined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, dan WAME. Our commitment ensures that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and that the journal maintains the highest ethical publishing standards. 

 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Misconducts

Sosio Religia is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer,­ and the publisher (Prodi Sosiologi Agama Fakultas Ushuluddin dan Studi Agama Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Sosio Religia is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important 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, the publisher, and the society.  

Fakultas Ushuluddin dan Studi Agama Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung as the publisher of Sosio Religia takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing the article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the Sosio Religia journal will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

The Sosio Religia journal will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to respected personal concerning the case of a complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

Post-publication discussions

Sosio Religia allows debate post-publication either on its site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Data Sharing Policies


Sosio Religia is committed to a more open research landscape, facilitating faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodology, and reporting standards. We encourage authors of articles published in our journals to share their research data including, but not limited to raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.



Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest


Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards


Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.


Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Ethical Oversight 

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal, ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. 

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

 

Abstract and Index

Sosio Religia is indexed in 

1. Google Scholar

 

 

Plagiarism Check

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Socio Religia committed to upholding the highest integrity and academic honesty standards. We take plagiarism and other forms of research misconduct very seriously. This policy outlines our approach to detecting and handling plagiarism.

Plagiarism occurs when an author uses someone else's work, ideas, or words without appropriate attribution or permission. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Direct copying of text from another source without quotation marks and proper citation.
  • Paraphrasing or rephrasing someone else's work without proper attribution.
  • Using ideas or data from another source without acknowledgement.
  • Submitting work that is not the author’s own.

Similarity Index

All submitted manuscripts will be screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. The maximum acceptable similarity index is 25%. Manuscripts that exceed this threshold will be rejected.

Screening Process

  1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript will be checked for plagiarism using Turnitin.
  2. Threshold Evaluation: If the similarity index is 25% or less, the manuscript will proceed to the peer review process.
  3. High Similarity: If the similarity index exceeds 25%, the manuscript will be immediately rejected. Authors will be notified and provided with the plagiarism report.

Consequences of Plagiarism

If plagiarism is detected at any stage (before or after publication), the following actions will be taken:

  1. Manuscript Rejection: The manuscript will be rejected if plagiarism is detected during submission.
  2. Retraction: The article will be retracted if plagiarism is discovered after publication. The journal will publish a retraction notice, and the author's institution may be notified.
  3. Author Notification: The corresponding author will be notified of the plagiarism and provided with a copy of the plagiarism report.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must ensure their work is original and all sources are appropriately cited. Authors should:

  • Check their manuscripts for potential plagiarism before submission.
  • Properly attribute all sources of information, data, and ideas.
  • Obtain necessary permissions for any third-party material used in their work.

Contact Information

For any questions or concerns regarding our plagiarism policy, please contact us at [email protected] 

 
 

 

Responsibilities of Editors

The editor and field editors of Sosio Religia should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

General duties and responsibilities

Editors are responsible for each study published in Sosio Religia. In this respect, the editors have the following roles and responsibilities:

  • Making efforts to meet the demand for knowledge from readers and authors,
  • Ensuring the continuous development of the journal,
  • Managing the procedures aimed to improve the quality of the studies published in the journal,
  • Supporting freedom of expression,
  • Ensuring academic integrity,
  • Following the procedures without making concessions on intellectual property rights and ethical standards,
  • Being transparent and clear in issues that require correction or explanation.

Relationships with Readers

Editors must make decisions taking into consideration the knowledge, skills, and expectations of all readers, researchers, and practitioners need. They must also ensure that the published studies contribute to the literature and be original. Moreover, they must take notice of the feedback received from researchers and practitioners and provide explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Authors

Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with authors:

  • Editors must make positive or negative decisions about the studies' importance, originality, validity, clarity in wording and suitability with the journal's aims and objectives.
  • Editors must accept the studies that are within the scope of the publication into pre-review process unless there are serious problems with the study.
  • Editors must not ignore positive suggestions made by reviewers unless there are serious problems with the study.
  • New editors, unless there are serious issues, must not change the previous editor's decisions about the studies.
  • Blind Review and Review Process must be published and editors must prevent possible diversions in the defined processes.
  • Editors must publish an Author's Guide that is comprehensive enough in answering queries by authors. This guide must be updated regularly.
  • Authors should be provided with explanatory and informative feedback.

Relationships with Reviewers

Editors have the following duties and responsibilities in their relations with reviewers:

Editors must

  • choose reviewers according to the subject of the study.
  • provide the information and guidance reviewers may need during the review process.
  • observe whether there are conflicting interests between reviewers and authors.
  • keep the identities of reviewers confidential in blind review.
  • encourage the reviewers to review the manuscript in an unbiased, scientific and objective tone.
  • evaluate reviewers regularly based on criteria like performance and timing.
  • develop practices and policies that increase the performance of reviewers.
  • take the necessary steps to update the reviewer pool dynamically.
  • prevent unkind and unscientific reviews.
  • make an effort to ensure the reviewer pool has a wide range.

Relationships with the Editorial Advisory Board

Editors must make sure that the members of the Editorial Advisory Board follow the procedures in accordance with the publication policies and guidelines, and must inform the members about the publication policies and developments. The editors must also train new members of the Editorial Advisory Board and provide the information they need.

Moreover, editors must

  • ensure that the members of the Editorial Advisory Board review the manuscripts in an unbiased and independent manner.
  • select the new members of the Editorial Advisory Board from those who can contribute to the journal and are qualified enough.
  • send manuscripts for review based on the subject of expertise of the Editorial Advisory Board.
  • regularly communicate with the Editorial Advisory Board.
  • arrange regular meetings with the Editorial Advisory Board for the development of publication policies and the journal.

 

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

 

The authors who submit their manuscripts to Sosio Religia are expected to comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

  • Author(s) must submit original studies to the journal. If they utilize or use other studies, they must make the in-text and end-text references accurately and completely.
  • People who have not contributed to the study at the intellectual level should not be indicated as author.
  • If the manuscripts submitted to be published are subject of conflicting interests or relations, these must be explained.
  • During the review process of their manuscripts, author(s) may be asked to supply raw data. In such a case, author(s) should be ready to submit such data and information to the editorial and scientific boards.
  • Author(s) should document that they have the participants' consent and the necessary permissions related with the sharing and research/analysis of the data that are used.
  • Author(s) bears the responsibility to inform the editor of the journal or publisher if they happen to notice a mistake in their study which is in early release or publication process and to cooperate with the editors during the correction or withdrawal process.
  • Authors cannot submit their studies to multiple journals simultaneously. Each submission can be made only after the previous one is completed. A study published in another journal cannot be submitted to Journal of Early Childhood Studies.
  • Author responsibilities given in a study (e.g.: adding an author, reordering of author names) whose review process has begun cannot be changed.

Please fill in Statement of Ethical clearance to be included as an attachment file when submission (Submit articles) download


 

Article Processing Charges

Sosio Religia does not charge any submission or publication fees, and no fees are incurred for article processing or for the review process.

Note:
Any translation or proofreading costs are paid by the author. Translation and proofreading services are provided by external parties.

 


 

Correction and Retraction

Sosio Religia takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record of our content for all end users very seriously. Changes to articles after they have been published online may only be made under the circumstances outlined below. Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal place great importance on the authority of articles after they have been published and our policy is based on best practice in the academic publishing community.
 
An Erratum is a statement by the authors of the original paper that briefly describes any correction(s) resulting from errors or omissions. Any effects on the conclusions of the paper should be noted. The corrected article is not removed from the online journal, but notice of erratum is given. The Erratum is made freely available to all readers and is linked to the corrected article.
 
A Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. Retractions are issued if there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, this can be as a result of misconduct or honest error; if the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification; if the work is plagiarized; or if the work reports unethical research. To protect the integrity of the record, the retracted article is not removed from the online journal, but notice of retraction is given, is made freely available to all readers, and is linked to the retracted article. Retractions can be published by the authors when they have discovered substantial scientific errors; in other cases, the Editors or Publisher may conclude that retraction is appropriate. In all cases, the retraction indicates the reason for the action and who is responsible for the decision. If a retraction is made without the unanimous agreement of the authors, that is also noted. In rare and extreme cases involving legal infringement, the Publisher may redact or remove an article. Bibliographic information about the article will be retained to ensure the integrity of the scientific record.
 
A Publisher's Note notifies readers that an article has been corrected subsequent to publication. It is issued by the Publisher and is used in cases where typographical or production errors (which are the fault of the Publisher) affect the integrity of the article metadata (such as title, author list or byline) or will significantly impact the readers' ability to comprehend the article. The original article is removed and replaced with a corrected version. Publisher's Notes are freely available to all readers. Minor errors that do not affect the integrity of the metadata or a reader's ability to understand an article and that do not involve a scientific error or omission will be corrected at the discretion of the Publisher.
 
In such a case, the original article is removed and replaced with a corrected version. The date the correction is made is noted on the corrected article. Authors should also be aware that an original article can only be removed and replaced with a corrected version less than one year after the original publication date. Corrections to an article which has a publication date that is older than one year will only be documented by a Publisher's Note.

 

Digital Preservation

Sosio Religia strives for the constant availability of published articles. With this in mind, Jurnal Sosio Religia content is continually archived and preserved its published articles in the library of Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung.

Internet Archive: 
Archive.org 

These schemes allow libraries to activate perpetual access rights when needed and offer assurance to libraries and publishers that their shared investments are protected and preserved for the future.

 

 

Revenue Sources, Advertising, and Direct Marketing

Revenue Sources

The operations of Sosio Religia are funded by the State (the Ministry of Religious Affairs Republic of Indonesia), i.e., through Daftar Isian Pelaksanaan Anggaran (DIPA) of Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung, Indonesia.

Advertising

Sosio Religia  does not accept advertising from any parties.

Direct Marketing

Attracting high-quality submissions is critical to the success of a journal. That’s why our publishing teams work closely to increase visibility and promote the research we publish. The marketing campaigns we develop are targeted and data-driven to help our journal reach potential authors and readers and maximize the success of our journal. In promoting the journal and publications to the public, the Jurnal Sosio Religia attempts to avoid actions detrimental to other parties and to avoid misleading information between prospective authors and the publishers.

Withdrawal of Manuscript

 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 manuscripts and works invested by the publisher.