Section Policies

Peer Review Process

Information for Author

Manuscripts submitted to this journal will be reviewed by editorial board in accordance with focus and scope, template, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a Turnitin software. 

Manuscript declared eligible by the editor will be either returned to the author for improvement or directly sent to the reviewer in blind review. Peer-reviewed will be done at least by 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. It usually takes one - two weeks for each reviewer to review. Final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers comments.

 

Review Decision

Before reviewer accept or decline an invitation to review, please note the following questions.

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor or recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. 

 

Review Evaluation

Your review result will help the editor to decide whether or not to publish the articles in our journal. The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript. You may find the full template for reviewer guidelines here

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public and 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

Rudence: Rural Development for Economic Resilience is a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method and it is a reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them.  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 editor/reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals. Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Pakuan takes their duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.

 

This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour 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-editor/reviewer, and the publisher (Faculty of Economic and Business). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editor/editor/reviewer.

 

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editor/editor/reviewer.

 

AUTHOR

Duties Of Authors

  1. 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.
  2. 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, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
  3. 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.
  4. Proper acknowledgement 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
  7. If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

 

Allegation of Misconduct

  1. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing 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, Editor/editor/reviewer have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record
  2. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

 

EDITOR/ REVIEWER

Duties Of Editor/Reviewer

  1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. 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 editor/ reviewer or editor/reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  3. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  4. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, editor/reviewers, potential editor/reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  5. Editor/reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A editor/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.
  6. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
  7. 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/ reviewer and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Allegation of Misconduct

  1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor/editor/reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  2. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editor/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

 

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT

  1. In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editor/ reviewers 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 Editor/editor/reviewers. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical editor/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/editor/reviewer, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
  4. 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 evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, JIAFE will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

 

Publication Frequency

Rudence: Rural Development for Economic Resilience is published by the Faculty of Economics, Universitas Pakuan. It is published twice a year (January and July). 

 

Screening for Plagiarism

All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a Turnitin software. If the Turnitin score is above 20%, the manuscript will instantly be rejected.

 

Author Fees

Rudence: Rural Development for Economic Resilience has no submission and publish fees (free of charge)