Publication Ethics Statement

The International Journal of Islamic Thought (IJIT), hereafter referred to as “The Journal”, is committed to selecting and publishing high-quality scholarly articles in the fields of Islamic thought, Muslim studies, and contemporary issues affecting Muslim societies worldwide. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure academic quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly integrity.

The Editorial Board endeavours to ensure that the review and publication process is conducted in a fair, objective, transparent, and ethically responsible manner. The Journal’s publication ethics guidelines are substantially informed by the principles and standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which IJIT is a member. COPE provides internationally recognised guidance on ethical editorial practice and offers frameworks for addressing ethical issues involving authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers.

This Publication Ethics Statement is intended to safeguard the integrity, credibility, and academic reputation of the Journal, and to ensure that all published materials meet the highest standards of scholarly, scientific, and ethical practice. Authors, editors, reviewers, and all parties involved in the publication process are expected to observe these guidelines when performing their respective roles and responsibilities.

Any ethical concern, complaint, or question relating to manuscripts submitted to or published by The Journal should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief for appropriate consideration and action. This code of ethics applies to all manuscripts submitted to the Journal and may be reviewed and revised by the Editorial Board from time to time to reflect developments in international standards of publication ethics and editorial best practice.

1.  Code of Ethics for Authors

1.1  Author’s Responsibility

Authors should submit original work carried out honestly according to scientific standards. Research results should not have been obtained fraudulently or dishonestly, fabricated or falsified. When writing, the Authors should present a concise and accurate account how the work was carried out. There should have enough detail for other researchers to repeat the work. The data should be accurately reported and never fudged. The Authors should not leave out problematic data so as to provide a clear story. The Authors should not claim originality if others have reported similar work. All information obtained privately should not be used without the explicit permission from the individual or source.

1.2 Originality

Authors who submit a manuscript to The Journal, must ascertain that the manuscript is their original work and has not been submitted elsewhere simultaneously. The Authors should also declare that the work and its variation have not been published elsewhere prior to submission to The Journal. Materials from other sources or publications must be appropriately cited or quoted whenever it is used in the submitted manuscript.

If the manuscript contains materials that overlap with work that was previously published, or is in-press, or that is under consideration for publication elsewhere, the Authors must cite this work in the manuscript. The Authors must also inform The Journal Editor-in-Chief of the related work, the Editor-in-Chief may request a copy of the related work.

A manuscript that is under review by any other journal must be withdrawn from the other journal, prior to submission to The Journal.

Authors must explicitly cite their own earlier work and ideas, even when the work or ideas are not quoted exactly in the manuscript. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Authors are included in the manuscript, the material should be reworded and appropriately cited.

Authors are not allowed to resubmit a manuscript to The Journal that was previously reviewed and rejected by The Journal unless encouraged by the Editor-in-Chief to resubmit in the rejection letter. If an earlier version was previously rejected by The Journal, and the Authors wish to submit a revised version for review, this fact and the justification for resubmission should be clearly communicated by the Authors to The Journal’s Editor-in-Chief at the time of submission.

To speed up the peer review process, Authors is strongly suggested to submit the manuscripts for publication in The Journal to check their manuscripts for possible plagiarism using any anti-plagiarism software before submitting it to The Journal.

1.3 Plagiarism

Manuscript submitted to The Journal must not contain any form of plagiarism including self- plagiarism. The manuscript should not contain any materials that are falsified and fabricated. 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.

Plagiarism can be in the form of claiming others’ paper as the Author’s own paper; using or paraphrasing substantial parts of other’s paper without proper credit. Claiming results from research others as Authors’ own is also a form of plagiarism.

The use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words or intellectual property without proper citation and permission, and claiming them as an original idea rather than derived from an existing source can be construed as plagiarism. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from any published or unpublished materials including abstracts, proceedings, grant applications, journal articles, books or any other publication format.

Authors must cite others’ work and ideas explicitly, even if the work or ideas are not quoted exactly or being paraphrased. This applies to previous work published or unpublished in any form.

Self-plagiarism (or “redundancy”) includes reusing portions of previous writings by using identical or nearly identical sentences or paragraphs from earlier writings in research manuscripts, without quotation or acknowledgement. Authoring several manuscripts that are slightly modified from each other and submitted for publication in different journals without acknowledgement of the other manuscript/articles is also a form of self-plagiarism.

Self-plagiarism is not generally regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other researchers. Self-plagiarism can be minimized or avoided by citing Author’s previous publications wherever appropriate.

Plagiarism is a misconduct and unacceptable publishing behavior that may lead to serious consequences to the Authors. In order to avoid plagiarism Authors should:

• keep all records of the source of information;
• put quotation marks for any phrase that are used in verbatim and cite the source;
• use their own words when summarizing or paraphrasing someone else’s paragraphs together with a proper citation;
• cite all sources as much as possible when writing a manuscript;
• give proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given; and
• cite publications that have been influential in determining the reported work.

As a general requirement, the maximum acceptable overall similarity index shall not exceed 15%, while similarity from any single source should normally remain below 3%. However, compliance with these numerical thresholds does not automatically guarantee acceptance, as the Editorial Board reserves the right to evaluate the nature, extent, and context of any textual overlap.

The Journal also acknowledges the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in scholarly writing. Authors may use AI-assisted technologies for language editing and manuscript preparation, provided that such use does not compromise the originality, accuracy, or intellectual contribution of the work. AI-generated content should not exceed 10% of the manuscript and must not be used to generate fabricated data, results, citations, references, or research findings. Any significant use of AI tools must be clearly and transparently disclosed by the authors in an appropriate section of the manuscript. Authors remain fully responsible and accountable for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical standards of all content submitted for publication.

1.4 Parallel or Multiple Submissions

Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research results to more than one journal at a time. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time constitutes unethical and unacceptable conduct.

Authors must not submit a similar manuscript or research results, in whole or in part, to more than one publication simultaneously, or at any time while the manuscript is currently under review.

Resubmission of a manuscript after being rejected or withdrawn from another publication is acceptable. Authors may not submit to The Journal a manuscript that is in whole or in part under review elsewhere, nor submit to another publication a work that is in whole or in part under review at The Journal.

The submitted manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, or under review by other publication, either in whole or in part in any language.

1.5 Publication from Conference Proceedings

The Journal does not consider manuscripts that have been published in full in conference proceedings, as originality and novelty are essential criteria for publication. However, the Editor-in-Chief may consider manuscripts based on work that has been partially presented at conferences or other forums, particularly when the proceedings have limited circulation. During submission, authors must clearly explain the substantial new material and contributions included in the manuscript that were not part of the conference proceedings. Any related proceedings must be appropriately cited in the submitted manuscript. All submissions are subject to the Journal’s standard double-blind peer-review process.

1.6 Conflicts of Interest

An Author should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest in his/her research conduct and publication. Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors. Possible conflicts often are not immediately apparent to others. These may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature.

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 research results. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed in the manuscript.

1.7 Suggestion for Reviewers – Conflict of Interest

When submitting a manuscript to The Journal the Authors are encouraged to recommend up to three possible potential Reviewers. The suggested reviewers must not be from the same institution as the Authors. The Editor-in-Chief is however not bound by these suggestions.

Authors should avoid any possible conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict of interest, in selecting Editors and Reviewers. Authors should not submit a manuscript to an Editor who is not in the same field as an easy way to get published.

1.8 Authorship Conduct

1.8.1 Authorship

Name of Authors listed in the manuscript should those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as Co-Authors. Others who have assisted in certain aspects of the research project can be mentioned in the Acknowledgement.

Authors of a manuscript must designate one author only as the Corresponding Author, who shall normally be listed as the first author. The Corresponding Author is solely responsible for all communication with the Journal and for coordinating communication among the co-authors. All authors listed in the manuscript must have agreed to the order of authorship and confirmed their approval of the final version of the manuscript submitted to The Journal.

1.8.2 Change of Authorship

Once The Journal accepts a manuscript for publication, amendments in the authorship in the form of addition, deletion or rearranging the order of the names are no longer allowed. However, changes in the authorship (addition, deletion or rearrangement) can be made during the review process before a manuscript is accepted.

1.8.3 Affiliation

The affiliation for each Author should be the institution where the majority of the work was performed. If an Author has subsequently transferred to another institution, the new address may also be included in the manuscript.

1.8.4 Co-Authorship

All Co-Authors should have made significant contributions to the work being written and share accountability for the manuscript. All Authors should agree with the final version of the manuscript before submission to The Journal.

1.9 Copyright and Licensing

Copyright of articles published in this journal remains with the author(s). By submitting and publishing their work, authors agree to license the article under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any copyrighted materials included in their manuscripts. The journal shall not be held liable for any copyright infringement committed by authors.

The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, editorial board, publisher, or affiliated institutions.

1.10 Human, Animal Subjects and Bioethics

Works involving chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use must be clearly identify in the manuscript. The relevant ethic committee must approve manuscripts involving experiments on live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates. Authors must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations issued by the relevant ethic committee.

The manuscript must include information (methods) section a statement identifying the institutional ethic committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details such as how and why the animal species and model being used can address the scientific objectives and, where appropriate, the study’s relevance to human.

The manuscript must include information (methods) section a statement identifying the institutional ethic committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details such as how and why the animal species and model being used can address the scientific objectives and, where appropriate, the study’s relevance to human.

For experiments involving human subjects, Authors must identify the ethic committee approving the experiments, and include with their submission a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained for all subjects. The reference number of the approval by the committee needs to be stated in the manuscript.

1.11 Manuscript Withdrawal

Authors may write to the Editor-in-Chief requesting for the withdrawal of a manuscript that has been submitted to The Journal. However, such withdrawal is usually permitted within two weeks from the date of initial submission to The Journal. The reason for the withdrawal is required in writing.

In the event that an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief or publisher to retract or correct the article accordingly.

1.12 Timeliness

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given to complete the revision, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief to request for an extension.

2. Code of Ethics for Reviewers

2.1 Reciprocity

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the field as a whole, and should be encouraged. Authors who submit manuscripts to The Journal are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review manuscripts for The Journal.

2.2 Double-Blind Peer-Review

The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the Authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of knowledge. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by the Editor-in-Chief to provide assessment of a written research manuscript, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for The Journal.

Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. Reviewers should avoid doing or saying anything that could identify them to the Authors of a manuscript they are reviewing or reviewed.

Regular reviewers selected for The Journal should meet minimum standards regarding their background in the research field, publication of articles and formal training.

Reviewers are experts in the scientific topic addressed in the manuscripts they review, and are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the manuscript are not appointed as reviewers for such manuscript.

2.3 Quality of Review

Manuscripts received by The Journal will be evaluated by the Editorial board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of The Journal. Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the Guidelines for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review. Manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to The Journal’s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in- Chief but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following inputs from the reviewers:

• Identify and comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and characterization.
• Comment accurately and constructively on the quality of the authors’ interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• Comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• Comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of substandard scientific practice.
• Provide the authors with useful suggestions to improve the manuscript. Comments should be constructive and professional. Personal comments regarding the authors are not permitted.
• Provide the Editor-in-Chief with the proper context and perspective to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript.
  
   

  The Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations, as follows:

  • Accept without revisions;
  • Accept with minor revisions to be made by the authors;
  • Return to the authors for major modifications, requiring the authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript for another round of reviews, depending on the reviewers’ recommendations;
  • Reject, with encouragement for resubmission; reasons for rejection must be provided by the Editor-in-Chief;
  • Reject outright, typically on the grounds of limited specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advancement, major technical and/or interpretational problems, or unethical publishing behavior. The Editor-in-Chief must provide the reasons for rejection.

Reviewers can recommend for particular course of action. However, the Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the Editor-in-Chief with the information on which a decision should be based.

All reviewers are informed of the journal’s expectations, and Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of review. The Editor-in-Chief will access the quality of review routinely by ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics periodically.

2.4 Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers should assess the manuscript sent to them for scope, accuracy, quality, relevance and contribution to the field. They should inform and return the manuscript to the Editor-in- Chief if they decide that the manuscript is not within their field of expertise or that they are not able to complete the review in the stated time.

The manuscript for review is privileged information. Reviewers must treat it as confidential and it should not be retained or copied in whatever means. The manuscript should not be shared with the reviewers’ colleagues without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers and Editor-in-Chief must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication. Such use may constitute as conflict of interest and is an unacceptable behavior.

In cases of suspected misconduct, reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties.

2.5 Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately to determine whether a longer time period or another Reviewer should be appointed. Typically, the time to complete a review is four weeks.

3. Code of Ethics for Editorial Board

3.1 Handling of submitted manuscript

Editor-in-Chief should evaluate the merit of a manuscript as soon as it is received. An acknowledgement with a reference number must be sent to the Authors once the manuscript is received. Manuscript deemed to be in good order must be sent to reviewers without delay.

3.2 Decision Quality

The Editor-in-Chef has to provide the Authors with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editor-in-Chief should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewers’ comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author.

3.3 Submission by Editorial Board Members

All manuscripts submitted to The Journal undergo a rigid double-blind review process including those received from the Editorial Board members. In addition, when making editorial decisions about peer reviewed articles where an editor is an Author or is acknowledged as a contributor, The Journal will ensure that the affected editors exclude themselves from the publication process including the review process and decision on the manuscript. Although editors are allowed to submit manuscript to The Journal, too many submissions from the Journal’s own Editorial Board is not allowed.

3.4 Handling Conflict of Interest by the Editors

When editors are presented with manuscript where their own interests may influence their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, they should hand over the handling of the manuscript to a suitably qualified editor in the board. The Editorial Board will appoint a suitable member to handle the manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally free of personal biases that may affect his/her judgments.

4. Ethics on Post Publication

4.1 Amendments

Changes can be requested by the Authors of the publication due to a variety of reason. These amendments may fall into one of four categories: erratum, corrigendum, retraction or addendum.

4.1.1 Erratum

Erratum is the notification of an important error made by The Journal during production of the article that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the Authors, or of The Journal.

4.1.2 Corrigendum

Corrigendum is the notification of an important error made by the Author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the Authors or the journal. All Authors must sign corrigenda submitted for publication.

4.1.3 Retraction

Retraction is the notification of invalid results. All Co-Authors must sign a retraction specifying the error and stating briefly how the conclusions are affected, and submit it for publication. Retractions are judged according to whether the main conclusion of the article no longer holds or is seriously undermined as a result of subsequent information coming to light of which the Authors were not aware at the time of publication.

Readers who wish to draw attention to published work requiring retraction should write to The Editor-in-Chief who will seek advice from reviewers if they judge that the information is likely to draw into question the main conclusions of the published article. The author of the article will be given a chance to give an explanation regarding the query.

4.1.4 Addendum

Addendum is the notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to an article, usually in response to readers’ request for clarification.

5. Penalties and Sanctions

The Journal reserves the right to evaluate issues of misconduct such as plagiarism and redundancy, etc. on a case-by-case basis. All cases will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

5.1 Consequences of Unethical Publishing Conduct

Authors: Any manuscript found to contain plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, omission of significant material, or any other form of unethical publishing conduct shall be considered unacceptable. Editors and/or reviewers who identify suspected unethical conduct by author(s) shall report the matter to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief shall ensure that appropriate preliminary action is taken and, where necessary, refer the matter to the Journal’s Editorial Board for further consideration. Depending on the seriousness of the case, the following actions may be taken:

• Issuance of a formal notice to the author(s) involved;
• Rejection of the manuscript;
• Retraction of the published article, with an appropriate notice published on the Journal’s website and in the subsequent hardcopy issue;
• Prohibition from submitting manuscripts to The Journal for a specified period, normally up to three (3) years; and/or;
• Notification to the author(s)’ institution regarding the unethical conduct for further action.

Editorial Board Members: The reputation and integrity of The Journal depend significantly on the conduct, impartiality, and ethical responsibility of its Editorial Board members. All Editorial Board members are expected to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics at all times. Any complainant who suspects misconduct by an Editorial Board member shall bring the matter to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief shall ensure that relevant documentation supporting the alleged violation of publication ethics is submitted to the Journal’s Editorial Board for appropriate review and action. Any Editorial Board member found to have committed proven unethical conduct may be removed from his or her editorial position in The Journal.

Bibliography

Barrass, R. 2002. Scientists Must Write. New York: Routledge.

COPE   2016. Code of Conduct and Best Practise Guidelines for Journal Editors. http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf (accessed 15 Sept 2016)

Day, R. A. & Gastel, B. 2006. How To Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 6th edition. Westport: Oryx Press.

Hames, I. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

PERTANIKA Journals. 2016. Code of Ethics PERTANIKA Journals, Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Roslan Abd Shukor. 2015. Rahsia Kejayaan Menulis Menulis Jurnal Berimpak Tinggi, Buku dan Tesis (in Malay). Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Sains Malaysiana 2016. Guide for Author. http://www.ukm.my/jsm/guide for authors.html. (accessed 15 Sept 2016).