Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

PROYEKSI is an open access, and peer-reviewed journal. Our main goal is to disseminate current and original articles from researchers and practitioners on various contemporary social and political issues: public administration, sociology, social work, political science, governmental science, international relations, communication science, and social anthropology.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Proyeksi welcome scholars with respective fields of study in social and political science to join our reviewer teams. Please kindly register here. More on reviewer's guidelines, click here

 

Publication Frequency

Proyeksi publishes twice in a year i.e. June and December

 

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.

 

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...

 

Screening Plagiarism

We are going to run a similarity test for the submitted articles using iThenticate. The tolerance level of similarity is about 25%.

 

Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Ethics of Scientific Publication
PROYEKSI is a journal managed by the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Tanjungpura (FISIP UNTAN) and published periodically two times a year. In accordance with the name of the journal, articles published on PROYEKSI are scientific papers of unreleased research in public administration, sociology, social work, political science, governmental science, international relations, communication science, and social anthropology.

This statement of code of ethics is a statement of ethical code of all parties involved in the process of publishing scientific journals including managers, editors, peer reviewers, website administrators, and authors. The ethics of scientific publication are based on Regulation of Head of LIPI No.5 Year 2014 about Code of Ethics of Scientific Publication. Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications essentially upholds three (3) ethical values in publications, namely:

  1. Neutrality, which is free from conflict of interest among the editorial members;

  2. Justice, which gives the right of authorship to the author;

  3. Honesty, which is free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publication.


The Duties and Responsibilities of Editorial Board
  1. Determine the name of the journal, scope of knowledge, period, and accreditation if necessary.

  2. Determine the members of the editorial board.

  3. Define the relationship between publishers, editors, peer-reviewers, and others in a contract.

  4. Appreciate the things that are confidential, both for contributing researchers, authors, editors, or peer-reviewers.

  5. Implement norms and provisions on intellectual property rights, especially copyright.

  6. Review the journal policy and submit it to the author, editor board, peer-reviewer, and reader.

  7. Make guidelines of code of behavior for editors and peer-reviewers.

  8. Publish the journal regularly.

  9. Ensure the availability of funding sources for sustainability of journal publication.

  10. Build network of cooperation

  11. Prepare licensing and other legality aspects
.

The Duties and Responsibilities of the Editors
  1. Meet the needs of readers and authors.

  2. Have the efforts to improve the quality of publications on an ongoing basis.

  3. Implement processes to ensure the quality of published papers.

  4. Prioritize freedom of expression.

  5. Maintain the integrity of the author's academic record.

  6. Deliver corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and apologies as required.

  7. Responsible for the style and format of the paper, while the contents and all statements in the paper is the responsibility of the author.

  8. Actively seek the opinions of authors, readers, peer-reviewers, and members of editorial boards to improve the quality of publications.

  9. Encourage the assessment of the journal if there are findings.

  10. Support initiatives to educate researchers about the ethics of publications.

  11. Assess the effect of the publishing policy on the author and peer-riviewer’s attitudes and fix them to increase responsibility and minimize errors.

  12. Have open minds to new opinions or views of others who may be contrary to personal opinions.

  13. Do not defend an opinion of oneself, author or third party that may result in a non-objective decision.

  14. Encourage the authors to revise the submitted paper until it deserved to be published.


The Duties and Responsibilities of Peer-Reviewer
  1. Getting a job from the editor to review the paper and submit the review to the editor, as a material for determining the feasibility of a paper to be published.

  2. The reviewer shall not review any paper involving him, whether directly or indirectly

  3. Maintain the author's privacy by not disseminating the results of corrections, suggestions, and recommendations by providing criticism, suggestions, feedback, and recommendations

  4. Encourage authors to make improvements to the paper

  5. Reviewing the written works that have been improved in accordance with predetermined standards

  6. The papers are reviewed in a timely manner according to the published style of scriptures (data collection methods, author's legality, conclusions, etc.).


The Duties and Responsibilities of Authors
  1. Ensure that the author list meets the criteria as the author

  2. Collectively responsible for the work and the contents of the article including methods, analysis, calculations, and details

  3. Express the origin of the resources (including funding), either directly or indirectly

  4. Explain the limitations of the study

  5. Respond to comments made by the peer-reviewer in a professional and timely manner

  6. Inform the editor if they are willing to retract the paper

  7. Make a statement that the papers submitted for publication are original, have not been published anywhere in any language, and are not in the process of submitting to other publishers

 

Reviewer's Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to PROYEKSI: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora will undergo a blind review process. The reviewers are tasked to carry out reviews that include analyses and assessments of manuscripts’ acceptability to be published. Reviewers should consider the following points prior to conducting their review:

  1. Does the manuscript you are being asked to review match your expertise?
    If the article does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the Editorial Secretary.

  2. Do you have time to review the manuscript?
    The review process should be completed within 2 weeks after a manuscript has been sent. If you do not agree with this condition and need more time to review, please contact the Editorial Secretary.

  3. Are there any conflicts of interests with the manuscript?
    If you have any conflicts of interests with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary

  4. Are there any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript?
    If you suspect any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary immediately.


Review Process:

TITLE
  1. Does the title describe manuscript subject comprehensively, precise, and not multiinterprated?

  2. Does the title written in Bahasa Indonesia and English?

  3. Does the title relevant with the substantive?


ABSTRACT
  1. Does the abstract describe the whole manuscript within 200 words?

  2. Does the abstract type in one paragraph, without citation, and using both Bahasa Indonesia and English?


KEY WORDS
  1. Is it inline with the title?

  2. Is it consist of 3-5 words?

  3. Is it alphabetically written and separated with coma?

  4. Is it written in both Bahasa Indonesia and English?


BACKGROUND
  1. Is it explain a specific topic which are important and strategic?

  2. Is it consist of literature review explanation

  3. Does the literature review also explaining previous studies that relevant and also supporting the manuscript?

  4. Is it explain any novelty and originality of the manuscript?


METHODS
  1. Is it suitable with spesific research method?

  2. Is it describing concept, model, informant, data classification, data analysis, data collection, or data interpretation (in qualitative methods)?

  3. Is it describing model/design, variable, indicators, size, experiment, instrument, research object and data analysis (in quantitative methods)?


RESULT AND DISCUSSION
  1. Is it correctly analyze based on step on the data analysis process chosen by the author(s)?

  2. Is it relevant with the background section?

  3. Is it relevant with the theory, concept, and methods chosen by the authors?


CONCLUSION
  1. Does the conclusion answering research problems?

  2. Not a repeatation of the discussion


REFERENCE
  1. Does the source cited on the text or the cited source in the text mentioned in the reference?

  2. Does the authors giving credit by giving proper citation to other author contribution relevant to the manuscript?

  3. Is it consist of at least 15 references with 80% of it from journal article?

  4. Does the reference publish within the last 10 years, except book on theories and history documents/archive?

  5. Is it written with the APA (American Psychological Association) style 6th edition?


Table and Figures
The tables and figures presented should correlate with the article’s content and they should have clear sources of reference (such as books, journals, website, or other references)

Writing Style:
Please write your text in good Bahasa/English that is interesting to read and easy to understand.

Final Review:
Assessment of the manuscript review should be written in the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary.
Reviewers are required to fill in the table marked with asterisks.
at the end of the review, reviewers are required to give one of the following recommendations:
  1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication

  2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewer's concern

  3. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised

  4. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues



View My Stats 

 

INDEXING