Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Al-Maqasid Journal is a journal of sharia and civil science

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Dua kali setahun bulan Juni dan bulan Desember

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.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice

Al-Maqasid Journal: Journal of Sciences and Civilization Journal is a journal that aims to become a leading peer-reviewed platform and authoritative source of information. We publish original research articles, review articles, and case studies that focus on the study of literature and civilization. Articles sent have never been published elsewhere in any language nor are they being reviewed for publication anywhere. The following statement describes the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal, including writers, editors, reviewers, and publishers (Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sheikh Ali Hasan Ahmad Addary Padangsidimpuan State Islamic University).
Al-Maqasid Journal: The Journal of Sharia and Civil Sciences is a journal that aims to become a leading peer-review platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research articles, review articles, and case studies that focus on sharia and civil studies. Articles submitted that have never been published elsewhere in any language are also not being reviewed for publication anywhere. The following statement describes the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal, including authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers (Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sheikh Ali Hasan Ahmad Addary Padangsidimpuan State Islamic University).

Author's Assignment

1. Reporting: The author must present an accurate report about the original research conducted and objective discussion about its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly and without counterfeiting, falsifying or manipulating inappropriate data. A manuscript must contain sufficient details and references to enable others to replicate the work. False or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow journal submission guidelines. Reporting: Authors should present an accurate report of the original research conducted as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly and without falsification, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain enough detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. False or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow the guidelines for journal submission.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written the original work completely. Manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editor has agreed to joint publication. Previously relevant works and publications, both by other researchers and those of the author, must be recognized and referred to properly. Primary literature must be quoted if possible. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate quotes.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original work. Manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous works and publications, both by other researchers and those of the author, should be duly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original words taken directly from the publication by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Simultaneous Publications: In general, authors may not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. It is also hoped that the author will not publish excessive manuscripts or manuscripts that describe the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Various publications arising from a research project must be clearly identified and the main publications must be referred.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: In general, authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. It is also expected that authors will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. The various publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified and the main publications should be referenced.
4. Source Recognition: The author must acknowledge all data sources used in the study and cite publications that influence the nature of the work reported. Correct recognition of the work of others must always be given.
Pengakuan Sumber: Penulis harus mengakui semua sumber data yang digunakan dalam penelitian dan mengutip publikasi yang berpengaruh dalam menentukan sifat pekerjaan yang dilaporkan. Pengakuan yang benar atas karya orang lain harus selalu diberikan.
5. Article: Writing research publications must accurately reflect the individual's contribution to work and reporting. Writing must be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. Other people who have made significant contributions must be registered as co-authors. In cases where the main contributors are registered as writers while those who make contributions are not substantial, or purely technical, for research or publications are listed in the acknowledgment section. The author also ensures that all authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
Articles: The writing of research publications should accurately reflect the individual's contribution to his or her work and reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where the main contributor is listed as an author while those who make less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to research or publications are listed in the recognition section. Authors also ensure that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscripts any other financial or substantive conflicts of interest that may be interpreted to influence the results or interpretation of their text. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any other financial or substantive conflicts of interest that may be interpreted to influence the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Work: If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the submitted text, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to withdraw or correct them. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If authors find significant errors or inaccuracies in the submitted manuscript, then authors should immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct them.

Editor's Duties:

1. Publication Decision: Based on a review report from the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject or request modifications to the text. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers must always encourage that decision. Editors can be guided by the editorial board's journal policies and are limited by legal requirements that will apply to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can negotiate with editors or other reviewers in making this decision. Editors must be responsible for all that they publish and must have procedures and policies to ensure the quality of the materials they publish and maintain the integrity of the published records.
2. Publication Decision: Based on the review report from the editorial board, the editor may accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to the researcher and reader should always drive the decision. Editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and limited by legal requirements that will apply regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. Editors must be responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published records.
3. Script Review: The editor must ensure that each script is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must arrange and use peer reviews fairly and wisely. The editor must explain their peer review process in the information for the author and also indicate which part of the journal the colleague has reviewed. Editors must use the right peer reviewers for articles considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those who have conflicts of interest.
4. Manuscript Review: The editor should ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review process in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use the right peer reviewers for articles considered for publication by selecting people with adequate expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
5. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each text received by the journal is reviewed for intellectual content without considering the author's gender, sex, race, religion, nationality, etc. An important part of the responsibility for making fair and impartial decisions is the enforcement of the principles of independence and editorial integrity. Editors are in a strong position to make decisions about publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
6. Fair Play: Editors must ensure that every manuscript accepted by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without considering the gender, gender, race, religion, nationality, etc of the author. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions is the enforcement of the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a strong position by making decisions about publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
7. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information about the manuscript submitted by the author is kept confidential. The editor must critically assess any potential violations of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring approval based on the correct information for the actual research presented, approval for publication if applicable.
8. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding the manuscript submitted by the author is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of patient data protection and confidentiality. This includes requiring consent based on correct information for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
9. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Journal editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in the manuscript sent for their own research without the written consent of the author. Editors may not be involved in decisions about articles where they have a conflict of interest.
10. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The Journal Editor will not use unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript submitted for its own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about articles where they have a conflict of interest.

Steering Task :
Duties of the Director :
1. Confidentiality: Information about the manuscript submitted by the author must be kept confidential and treated as special information. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.
2. Kerahasiaan: Informasi mengenai naskah yang diserahkan oleh penulis harus dirahasiakan dan diperlakukan sebagai informasi istimewa. Mereka tidak boleh ditunjukkan atau didiskusikan dengan orang lain kecuali sebagaimana diizinkan oleh editor.
3. Recognition of Resources: Reviewers must ensure that the author has acknowledged all data sources used in the study. The reviewer must identify the relevant published work that has not been quoted by the author. Each statement that observations, derivations, or previously reported arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer must immediately notify the journal if they find irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, know the substantial similarities between the manuscript and submission together with other journals or published articles, or suspect that errors may have occurred during the research or writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers must, however, maintain the confidentiality of their problems and not personally investigate further unless the journal requests further information or advice.

4. Source Acknowledgement: The reviewer should ensure that the author has acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. Any statement that observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should immediately notify the journal if they find irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and submission along with other journals or published articles, or suspect that errors may have occurred during the research or writing and submission of the manuscript; Reviewers should, however, maintain the confidentiality of their issues and not personally investigate further unless the journal requests further information or advice.
5. Standard Objectivity: An overview of submitted texts must be carried out objectively and reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewer must follow the journal instructions about the specific feedback needed from them and unless there are good reasons not to do so. The reviewer must be constructive in their review and provide feedback that will help the author to improve their text. The reviewer must clarify additional suggested investigations which are important to support the claims made in the text that are being considered and which will only strengthen or extend the work
6. Standards of Objectivity: The review of the submitted manuscript must be done objectively and the reviewer must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions on the specific feedback required of them and unless there is a good reason not to do so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the writer to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should clarify which additional investigations are suggested which are important to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will only strengthen or prolong the work.
7. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Information or ideas that are obtained specifically obtained through a peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider texts where they have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any writer, company or institution connected to the paper. In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author (s) notifies the journal if this knowledge creates a potential conflict of interest.
8. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Specially obtained information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any author, company, or institution connected to the paper. In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises a potential conflict of interest.
9. Accuracy: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers only agree to review the manuscript if they are reasonably sure they can return a review in the time frame proposed or mutually agreed upon, informing the journal immediately if they need an extension. If the reviewer feels it is impossible for him to complete the review of the manuscript within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the text can be sent to other reviewers.
10. Accuracy: Reviewers should respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers only agree to review the manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the journal immediately if they need an extension. If the reviewer finds it impossible for him or her to complete the manuscript review within the allotted time then this information should be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.