JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) focus and scope: Psychological and educational measurement (psychometric development and research instrument development, research on quantitative psychology, and other related research educational and psychological assessment).
Peer Review Process
All submitted papers to JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) are subject to double-blind review process.
JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia) publishes twice a year since 2012 in April and October.
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.
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 Ethic Statement
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
5. Duties of Reviewers
5. a. 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.
5. b. 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.
5. c. 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.
5. d. Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. e. Acknowledgement 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.
5. f. 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.
6. Duties of Authors
6. a. 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.
6. b. 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.
6. c. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
6. d. Acknowledgement 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.
6. e. 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.
6. f. 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.
6. g. 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.
The articles published in this journal are scientifically proved, which follow the code of ethics in scientific publication. The code of ethics it self upholds three values of ethics in publications, namely, (1) Neutrality (free from conflicts of interest in public management). (2) Justice (giving the right of authorship to the beneficiary as the author). (3) Honesty (free from duplication, fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (DF2P) in the publication. The articles published also following certain procedures or orders, such as double-blind review and revision process that consistent with the journal’s regular review, to ensure that the quality is maintain properly.
Double Blind Peer Review
JP3I, published in 2012, two times a year since 2016, is an Indonesian language, peer-reviewed journal, and specializes in Measurement Psychology and Education. All submitted papers are subject to a double-blind review process. Click here to get the information about author guidelines. This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting to JP3I:
Submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files.
Information to help prepare the Title Page
This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including telephone and e-mail address.
Information to help prepare the Blinded Manuscript
Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. To assist with this process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:
Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]” .
Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier
Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.
Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows: ‘[Anonymous, 2007]’.
For blinding in the reference list: ‘[Anonymous 2007] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’
Remove references to funding sources
Do not include acknowledgments
Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.
The article that can be reviewed by editor board after completing the attachment of plagiarism checker and stated that article at least 75% is origin. The following are the tools of checker: