Publication ethics and malpractice statement

Jurnal Teologi (JUTEOLOG) is a blind-review journal published periodically twice a year (December and June). Jurnal Teologi (JUTEOLOG) publishes writings in the field of Christian theology and religious education as well as Christian ethics which have a significant contribution to the development of theological sciences, and Christian religious education. 

The publication of articles in blind-review journals is an important part of the development of science. Articles from blind-review results support and embody a scientific approach. Therefore, a standard of ethical behaviour is required for all parties involved in the publication: journal editors, reviewers, and authors. This statement was adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and covers the code of ethics for chief editor, editorial board members, reviewers and authors. This statement is based on:


1. Publication Decision

Jurnal Teologi’s Editor is responsible for deciding articles to be published from accepted articles. This decision is based on validation of the article as well as the contribution of the article to researchers and readers. In carrying out its duties, the Editor is guided by the policy of the editorial board and is subject to legal provisions that need enforcement such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with the editor or other reviewer in making the decision.

2. Objective Assessment

The editor evaluates a script based on its intellectual content without any discrimination in religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation, and so on.

3. Confidentiality

Editor and editorial staff should not disclose any information about the manuscript received to anyone, other than the author, reviewer, prospect reviewer, and editorial board.

4. Conflicts of Interest

The material of the article submitted to Jurnal Teologi (JUTEOLOG) has not been published and should not be used for personal research editors without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor must refuse to review the manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company or institution dealing with the manuscript.

5. Cooperation in Investigation

The editor must take responsive steps if there are ethical-related complaints on submitted texts or published articles. The editor may contact the screenwriter and consider the complaint. The editor may also communicate further to the relevant institution or research institution. When complaints are resolved, things such as publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other records, need to be considered.


1. Contribution to Editor’s Decision

Blind peer review by reviewers helps editors in making decisions and can help authors improve their writing through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component of informal scholarly communication and scientific approach.

2. Timeliness

If the assigned reviewer feels unqualified for a review of a script or knows that it is impossible to review promptly, the assigned reviewer should notify the editor immediately.

3. Confidentiality

Any submitted manuscript for review should be treated as a confidential document. The text should not be disclosed to or discussed with anyone else unless it has been authorized by the editor. 

4. Objective

The review must be done objectively. The personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer must convey his or her views accompanied by a supportive argument.

5. Completeness and Authenticity Reference

The reviewer should identify the published works that have not been quoted by the author. A statement of previously published observations or arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers shall notify the editors of substantial similarities or overlaps between manuscripts being reviewed with other published posts, by reviewer’s knowledge.

6. Conflict of Interest

Unpublished article material should not be used in a reviewer's research without including written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should refuse to review the manuscript if a reviewer has a conflict of interest, due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company or institution dealing with the work.


1. Standard of Writing

The author should present accurate papers/articles on the research conducted and present an objective discussion of the significance of the study. Research data should be presented accurately in the article. An article should be sufficiently detailed with sufficient reference to enable others to replicate the work. Inaccurate fraud or presentation of papers is unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

2. Access Research Data

Authors may be required to provide raw data on the articles to be reviewed and should be able to provide public access to such data where possible, and should be able to retain such data within a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all forms is unethical in the publication of scientific papers and is unacceptable. The author must ensure that all the work presented is original, and if the author has used the work and/or the words of others, then the author must present the quotation appropriately. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as acknowledging someone else's writing into their writing, copying or rewriting substantial parts of the work of others without mentioning the source, and claiming the results of research done by others. Self-plagiarism or auto plagiarism is one form of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is to quote the results or sentences of their own published works without mentioning the source.

4.   Posting Terms of Posts

Authors may not publish the same script in more than one journal. Applying the same script to more than one journal is unethical behaviour in the publication of scientific papers and is unacceptable.

5. Inclusion of Reference Resources

Correct recognition of the work of others must always be done. The author should mention the influential publications in the preparation of his work. Personally-acquired information, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without the prior written consent of the source of such information.

6. Authorship Posts

The author is the person who has contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the article. All those who have contributed significantly are listed as co-authors. Corresponding authors should ensure that all co-authors have been included in the text and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

7. Errors in published articles

When the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author is responsible to promptly notify the editor of the journal, and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article. If the editor obtains information from a third party that a work of publication contains significant misunderstandings, the author is responsible for promptly withdrawing or correcting the text or providing evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original article.