Focus and Scope

Focus

This journal focused on religion extention the results of field research, the results of literature reviews (critical/literature review), as well as the results of community development activities and/or social religion extention carried out by individuals and/or groups of researchers, practitioners and academics (students and/or lecturers)

Scope

Religion Guidance | Spiritual Guidance | Religion Extension | Social Extension | Community Development Extension | Non-Formal Education | Behavior Change Communication | Community Empowerment/ Development | Community Intervention | Islam and Mental Health | Gender and Development Studies

Section Policies

Articles

• Open Submissions
• Indexed
• Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The research article submitted to this online journal will be peer-reviewed by 1 (one) and/or 2 (two) reviewer (Double Blind Review) with multiple rounds. Each round involves a reviewer and different reviewer might be assigned in next rounds depending on case arising.  The accepted research articles will be available online after the journal peer-reviewing process completed.

JPA, published twice yearly since 2021, is a peer-reviewed journal specializing in religion extension. All submitted papers are subject to a double-blind review process. Click here to get the information about author guidelines.

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Penyuluhan Agama (JPA) publishes scientific articles 2 times a year (6 months) published in March and September every year.

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 is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative.

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...

Editor Guidelines

Editor's/section editor guide

When a manuscript has been submitted by AUTHOR, the editor's duties are as follows:

1. Assess that the manuscript is suitable to be forwarded to RIVIEWER or returned to AUTHOR to be corrected on systematic aspects or rejected directly by the EDITOR because the study does not match the focus & scope of JPA
2. Select and assign REVIEWERS to review the submitted manuscript
3. Monitor and remind REVIEWERS to immediately carry out reviews
4. After the reviewed manuscript is returned by the REVIEWER, the EDITOR forwards the REVIEWER's information/recommendations to the AUTHOR (accepts directly, makes minor/major corrections or rejects the manuscript
5. After the author returns the revised manuscript, the EDITOR carries out final editing with separate stages up to proof reading and adjusts (matches) the metadata in the OJS with the metadata in the manuscript layout related to TITLE, ABSTRACT, KEYWORDS, REFERENCES
6. Enter the manuscript in the nearest volume and number publication plan

More details can be seen here.

Reviewer Guidelines

Explanation

Reviewers (bestari partners) have an important role in maintaining the quality and integrity of an submitted scientific article manuscript.

Principles of review

Principles that reviewers adhere to in the process of reviewing manuscripts:

1. Confidential, meaning that the reviewer maintains the confidentiality of his/her identity to the author whose manuscript is being reviewed/reviewed
2. Objective, meaning that reviewers maintain their own credibility and integrity when reviewing manuscripts so that they can act fairly and are not biased or racist. If you as a reviewer have an assignment to review, but you don't have time and/or it doesn't match the manuscript assigned by the editor, then the reviewer needs to immediately inform the editor about this so that the manuscript can be reviewed by another reviewer
3. Suspicion of ethical violations, meaning that if the reviewer has suspicions regarding violations of publication ethics in the manuscript being reviewed, such as plagiarism, repetition of publications, etc., the reviewer can inform the editor of this matter
4. Repeated review, meaning that if you have reviewed an article that you were previously advised to reject in another journal, then you still need to review the article that was submitted to JPA

Elements reviewed

Elements that need to be commented/reviewed can be the following:

1. The review is carried out quantitatively and/or qualitatively by providing scale values and/or comments on improvements to aspects of presentation technique/systematics, consistency and substance
2. The substantive aspects of the article that are assessed consist of originality/newness/novelty, scientific impact, comparison of the latest primary reference sources, and conclusion.

Stages of the process of reviewing a manuscript

The stages of conducting a review on OJS with a reviewer account are as follows:

1. Login using the reviewer account
2. If you are willing, click "Will do the review" and if you are not willing, click "Unable to do the review"
3. Read/watch the guide for reviewing manuscripts below
4. Download the manuscript in the 'Review Steps" section number 3 and carry out a review using Microsoft Word software on your laptop/computer
5. Provide general comments/reviews in the column for author and editor or for editor in number 4. Click on the icon to enter (or paste) your review of this submission.
6. Upload the reviewed manuscript in the 'Review Steps" section number 5, don't forget to click upload after selecting the manuscript that has been reviewed
7. Select the recommendation for assessing the manuscript (Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, See Comment)
8. Save
9. Okay
10. Send email

More details can be seen here.

Publication Ethic Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed JPA is essential in developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. 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 publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.  

Islamic Extension Guidance Study Program (BPI) of the Faculty of Da'wah and Communication Sciences UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta as the publisher of JPA takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. 

Publication decisions

The editor of the JPA is 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 evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose 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 research without the author's written consent.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and 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 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.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been 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 they have personal knowledge of.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with 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.

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 generally publish manuscripts describing 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.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly 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 others 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 in 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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 published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Scientific Statement

The articles published in this journal are scientifically proven and follow the code of ethics in scientific publication. The code of ethics itself upholds three values of ethics in publications, including (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 were also published following specific procedures or orders, such as a double-blind review and revision process consistent with the journal's regular review, to ensure that the quality is maintained properly.