Al-Mu'tabar: Jurnal Ilmu Hadis relates to the Code of Publication Ethics (COPE) issued by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) by Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 pertaining to Scientific Publication Ethics. COPE contracted the publishers, editors, reviewers, and writers involved in the publishing of the Al-Mu'tabar article. COPE Al-Mu'tabar concerns the three principles underlying the ethics of scientific publication, namely (1) impartiality, namely, the absence of a conflict of interest, (2) equity, namely, the giving of creator rights, and (3) integrity, namely, the absence of duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.  

Regarding COPE LIPI (Regulation of the Head of LIPI No. 5 of 2014 on the Ethics of Scientific Publication), there are four pillars of scientific publications that must be mentioned: (1) Practices associated with publisher responsibilities, such as developing publication rules and programs, enabling the work of editors and reviewers, respecting the judgments of editors and reviewers, and identifying sponsors and choosing third parties. In publication practice, the publisher is required to ensure that all submissions adhere to the Scientific Publication Ethics. Regarding sponsorship, publishers must guarantee that sponsors and other parties do not complicate benefits or exert undue influence over journal rules and activities; (2) Practices associated with the editor's responsibilities, which include making judgments on the publishing of manuscripts, organizing manuscript reviews, and assuring the fairness of manuscript review findings, the confidentiality of material, and the protection of manuscripts from manipulation. (3) procedures connected to the reviewer's obligations, which include assessing manuscripts both openly and privately, confirming the integrity and validity of data sources, references, and concepts, as well as the objectivity of their contents, and performing unbiased reviews. (4) practices related to the author's duties, namely examining practices related to the author's duties including manuscript authority, declaration of manuscript authenticity, detection of possible duplication of manuscripts, acknowledgments of sponsorship, statements of authority, and statements of research funding sources.

Jurnal Al-Mu’tabar intends to be a leading platform for peer review and authoritative source of knowledge. We produce original research papers, review articles, and case studies on Arabic Language, Arabic Literature, and Arabic Language Learning and related issues that have not been previously published in any language or are currently under review for publication elsewhere. This statement addresses the ethical conduct of everyone participating in the publication of papers in this journal. This statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE.

The regulations and obligations of publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors are outlined here.

Author assignment

• Reporting Standards: Authors are required to provide an accurate description of the original research conducted and an objective analysis of its importance. Researchers are required to present their findings without fabrication, falsification, or incorrect data manipulation. A manuscript must contain sufficient information and citations for others to reproduce the work. Statements that are purposely false or incorrect are unethical and hence inappropriate. Manuscripts must adhere to the journal's requirements for submission.
• Originality and Plagiarism: The author must guarantee that their work is entirely original. Manuscripts may not be concurrently submitted to multiple publications unless the editor has consented to joint publishing. Relevant prior work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors themselves, must be recognized and cited appropriately. Whenever feasible, primary sources have to be mentioned. Original words taken straight from the works of other scholars must be included in quotation marks and accompanied by relevant citations.
• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: In general, authors may not simultaneously submit the same work to multiple journals. Authors are also required not to publish redundant or duplicate publications describing the same study in many journals. Submitting the same manuscript to many journals at once is an unethical and improper publication practice. Multiple publications resulting from a single research effort must be recognized and the initial publication must be cited.
• Source Acknowledgment: In deciding the content of the report, authors must recognize all data sources utilized in the research and mention significant publications. Work. Always give credit where credit is due; acknowledge the labor of others.
• Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of a research article must appropriately represent the individual's contribution to the research and the manner in which it was reported. Authorship should be restricted to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have contributed significantly should be credited as co-authors. In instances when key contributors are credited as authors and others who made minor or purely technical contributions to research or publishing are listed in an acknowledgements section. Additionally, the author verifies that all co-authors have seen and accepted the submitted version of the work and their participation as co-authors.
• Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must state in their article any financial or other substantial conflicts of interest that might be interpreted as influencing the outcomes or interpretation of their work. The disclosure of all sources of financial assistance for the project is required.
• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a serious error or inaccuracy in the submitted article, he or she must tell the editor of the journal or publisher promptly and collaborate with the editor to withdraw or fix the paper.
• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author must explicitly indicate in the text whether or not the study employs any substances, techniques, or equipment with inherent risks.

 

Editor's Task

1. Publication Decision: On the basis of the editorial board's review report, the editor might accept, reject, or recommend that the manuscript be revised. The validity of the work in question and its significance to scholars and readers should always be the determining factor in such judgments. Editors can be led by the journal's editorial board's rules and constrained by legal obligations pertaining to defamation, violation of copyright, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers before making a determination. Editors must be accountable for what they publish and put in place procedures and policies to assure the quality of the content they publish and preserve the integrity of published records.
2. Manuscript Review: The editor must guarantee that each paper undergoes a preliminary evaluation for originality. Editors are required to arrange and utilize peer review with fairness and discretion. In information for authors, editors should describe their peer review process and specify which sections of the publication are peer reviewed. Editors should use suitable peer reviewers for manuscripts under consideration for publication, choosing those with sufficient knowledge and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must guarantee that each submitted work is evaluated based on its intellectual substance, independent of the author's gender, color, religion, nationality, etc. Maintaining editorial independence and integrity is an integral component of the obligation to make fair and unbiased choices. It is crucial that the editorial decision-making process be as fair and unbiased as possible, as editors are in a position of authority when making publication choices.
4. Confidentiality: Editors must safeguard the confidentiality of information pertaining to papers submitted by authors. Editors must evaluate seriously any possible violations of patient confidentiality and data protection. This includes requesting informed permission for the actual study provided and, if relevant, consent for publishing.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The Journal's Editor will not utilize unpublished information revealed in a submitted paper for his own study without the author's express written agreement. Editors with a conflict of interest should recuse themselves from decisions involving papers in which they have a stake.

Reviewer Task

1. Confidentiality: The information given by writers regarding their papers must be kept secret and considered proprietary information. Unless authorized by the editors, they may not be displayed to others or discussed with others.
2. Source Acknowledgment: The reviewer must check that the author has cited all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should discover relevant published works that the author has neglected to cite. Any assertion that observations, derivations, or reasoning have been previously reported must be backed by an appropriate citation. Reviewers must tell the journal promptly if they detect inconsistencies, have concerns about ethical elements of the work, become aware of significant parallels between manuscripts and concurrent submissions to other journals or published publications, or feel an error may have happened. either during research or drafting and submission of papers; nevertheless, reviewers should keep their concerns discreet and not probe further unless requested by the journal.
3. Objectivity Standards: The evaluation of submitted articles must be conducted objectively, and reviewers must articulate their opinions clearly and with supporting evidence. Unless there is a compelling reason not to, reviewers should adhere to the journal's guidelines about the precise input needed of them. In their evaluations, reviewers should be helpful and give input that can assist authors to improve their submissions. The reviewer should specify which further studies are recommended to substantiate the assertions made in the article under evaluation and which will simply strengthen or expand the work.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Confidential information or ideas received through peer review must not be utilized for personal advantage. Reviewers should not evaluate papers in which they have a conflict of interest because of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the paper's author, company, or institution. If they guess the author's identity during a double-blind review, they must tell the journal if this knowledge creates a possible conflict of interest.
5. Accuracy: The reviewer is required to react within a fair amount of time. Reviewers will only agree to evaluate a manuscript if they are fairly certain that they can complete the review within the suggested or mutually agreed-upon time period, telling the journal immediately if they need an extension. The reviewer must contact the editor if they believe it will be impossible for them to finish the review manuscript in the time provided so that it can be distributed to other reviewers.