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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

 136 total views,  2 views today