Editorial policies

Focus and Scope

The Nusan­tara Halal Jour­nal (NHJ) is a ref­er­eed research jour­nal pub­lished by Uni­ver­si­tas Negeri Malang (UM). NHJ is devot­ed to the orig­i­nal con­tri­bu­tion to halal sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, man­age­ment, edu­ca­tion, reli­gion, and oth­er relat­ed aspects.

Han­dling edi­tors at NHJ make an ini­tial assess­ment to ensure a man­u­script is sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly robust and fits with­in the scope of the jour­nal. After this first check, the han­dling edi­tor decides whether to send the man­u­script out for review or rec­om­mend it for imme­di­ate rejection.

Section Policies

Short Communication

Checked Open SubmissionsChecked IndexedChecked Peer Reviewed

Research Article

Checked Open SubmissionsChecked IndexedChecked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open SubmissionsChecked IndexedChecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

NHJ uses Pla­gia­rism Detec­tion Soft­ware – Tur­nitin® to screen for pla­gia­rism before pub­li­ca­tion. This jour­nal oper­ates a con­ven­tion­al sin­gle-blind review­ing pol­i­cy in which the review­er’s name is always con­cealed from the sub­mit­ting author. Authors should present their papers hon­est­ly with­out fab­ri­ca­tion, fal­si­fi­ca­tion, pla­gia­rism, or inap­pro­pri­ate data manip­u­la­tion. Sub­mit­ted papers are eval­u­at­ed by anony­mous ref­er­ees for con­tri­bu­tion, orig­i­nal­i­ty, rel­e­vance, and pre­sen­ta­tion. Papers will be sent for anony­mous review by at least two (2) review­ers who will either be mem­bers of the Edi­to­r­i­al Board or oth­ers of sim­i­lar stand­ing in the field. In order to short­en the review process and respond quick­ly to authors, the Edi­tors may triage a sub­mis­sion and come to a deci­sion with­out send­ing the paper for exter­nal review. The Edi­tor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as pos­si­ble, hope­ful­ly in 8–12 weeks. The Edi­tors’ deci­sion is final and no cor­re­spon­dence can be entered into con­cern­ing man­u­scripts con­sid­ered unsuit­able for pub­li­ca­tion in this jour­nal. All cor­re­spon­dence, includ­ing noti­fi­ca­tion of the Edi­tors’ deci­sion and requests for revi­sions, will be sent by email. 

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.

Publication Frequency

NHJ is pub­lished online with a fre­quen­cy of two (2) issues per year. Besides that, spe­cial issues of NHJ will be pub­lished non-peri­od­i­cal­ly from time to time. 

Ethics and Responsibilities

Editor in Chief

  • Ensure that the jour­nal’s edi­tors and edi­to­r­i­al board are iden­ti­fied in the jour­nal masthead.
  • Pro­vide guide­lines to the authors for sub­mis­sion ofmanuscript.
  • Estab­lish­ing a sys­tem for effec­tive and rapid peer review.
  • Treat­ing all authors with fair­ness, cour­tesy, objec­tiv­i­ty, hon­esty, and transparency.
  • Pro­tect­ing the con­fi­den­tial­i­ty of every author’s work.
  • Mak­ing edi­to­r­i­al deci­sions with rea­son­able speed and com­mu­ni­cat­ing them in a clear and con­struc­tive manner.

Editors

  • Con­duct­ing peer review of sub­mit­ted manuscripts.
  • Assign­ing papers for review appro­pri­ate to each reviewer’s area of inter­est and expertise.
  • Allow­ing review­ers appro­pri­ate time to com­plete their reviews.
  • Main­tain­ing the journal’s inter­nal integrity.
  • Mak­ing rec­om­men­da­tions about improved eval­u­a­tion and dis­sem­i­na­tion of sci­en­tif­ic material.

Authors

  • Man­u­script sub­mis­sions must be made through the journal’s online man­u­script sys­tem at https://​jur​nal​ha​lal​.com
  • Authors MUST fol­low the “Author Guide­lines” that stat­ed in the NHJ website.
  • The man­u­script has not been pre­vi­ous­ly pub­lished, nor is it before anoth­er jour­nal for con­sid­er­a­tion (or an expla­na­tion has been pro­vid­ed in Com­ments to the Editor).
  • The man­u­script MUST in Microsoft Word and NOT IN PDF FORMAT.

Reviewers

  • Avoid­ing per­son­al com­ments or criticism
  • Noti­fy­ing the edi­tor imme­di­ate­ly if unable to review in a time­ly man­ner and pro­vid­ing the names of poten­tial oth­er reviewers.
  • Pro­vid­ing a thought­ful, fair, con­struc­tive, and infor­ma­tive cri­tique of the sub­mit­ted work, which may include sup­ple­men­tary mate­r­i­al pro­vid­ed to the jour­nal by the author.
  • Mate­r­i­al under review should not be shared or dis­cussed with any­one out­side the review process unless nec­es­sary and approved by the editor.
  • Com­plete the review process with­in the schedule.

Plagiarism

Authors should sub­mit their orig­i­nal work that is not pla­gia­rized, and has not pub­lished or being con­sid­ered else­where. Pla­gia­rism check­er soft­ware by Tur­nitin® may be used by the edi­to­r­i­al office to check the sim­i­lar­i­ties of sub­mit­ted man­u­scripts with exist­ing lit­er­a­ture. Work and/​or words from oth­er pub­li­ca­tions must be appro­pri­ate­ly cit­ed or quoted.

Copyright Notice

The jour­nal allows the author(s) to hold the copy­right with­out restric­tions under the Cre­ative Com­mons Attri­bu­tion-Non­Com­mer­cial-Share­Alike 4.0 Inter­na­tion­al License.

Review Guidelines

Nusan­tara Halal Jour­nal (NHJ) is a peer-reviewed inter­na­tion­al jour­nal. This state­ment clar­i­fies eth­i­cal behav­ior of all par­ties involved in the act of pub­lish­ing an arti­cle in our jour­nals, includ­ing the authors, the edi­tors, the peer-review­er­­­­­s and the pub­lish­er (Uni­ver­si­tas Negeri Malang). 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 NHJ 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 authors, the jour­nal edi­tors, the peer review­ers, the pub­lish­er and the society.

Uni­ver­si­tas Negeri Malang as the pub­lish­er of NHJ, 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. In addi­tion, the NHJ and Edi­to­r­i­al Board will assist in com­mu­ni­ca­tions with oth­er jour­nals and/​or pub­lish­ers where this is use­ful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The edi­tors of the NHJ are respon­si­ble for decid­ing which of the arti­cles sub­mit­ted to the jour­nal should be pub­lished. The val­i­da­tion of the work in ques­tion and its impor­tance to researchers and read­ers must always dri­ve such deci­sions. The edi­tors 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 edi­tors may con­fer with oth­er edi­tors or review­ers in mak­ing this decision.

Fair play

An edi­tor at any time eval­u­ate 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.

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 behav­iour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to pro­vide the raw data in con­nec­tion with a paper for edi­to­r­i­al review, and should be pre­pared to pro­vide pub­lic access to such data (con­sis­tent with the ALPSP-STM State­ment on Data and Data­bas­es), if prac­ti­ca­ble, and should, in any event, be pre­pared to retain such data for a rea­son­able time after publication.

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.

Haz­ards and Human or Ani­mal Subjects

If the work involves chem­i­cals, pro­ce­dures or equip­ment that have any unusu­al haz­ards inher­ent in their use, the author must clear­ly iden­ti­fy these in the manuscript.

Dis­clo­sure and Con­flicts of Interest

All authors should dis­close in their man­u­script any finan­cial or oth­er 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.

Author(s) Fee

Nusan­tara Halal Jour­nal does not charge any pub­li­ca­tion fee.

 1,170 total views,  6 views today