Abstracting & Indexing
About the Journal
JOURNAL OF HADITH STUDIES
Journal of Hadith Studies is peer-reviewed journal of Hadith studies, dedicated to the scholarly study of all aspects of Hadith and Hadith Sciences. The journal is published by ASILHA (Asosiasi Ilmu Hadits Indonesia/Indonesian Hadith Sciences Association). The journal uses http://journal.islamicateinstitute.co.id/index.php/johs for electronic publication.
FOCUS AND SCOPE
The journal receives articles from researchers who have new and progressive issues on scholarly study of all aspects of Hadith and Hadith Sciences related, but not limited, to Islamic teachings resources, Islamic thoughts, philosophy, geography, history, law, political science, economics, education, culture, anthropology, sociology, literature, Islamic propagation (da'wa), communication, psychology, science and technology, international relations, environmental and developmental issues, as well as ethical questions related to Hadith and Hadith Sciences research available all around the world.
The journal also covers contemporary Hadith and Hadith Sciences issues emerging in the world. We invite and appreciate writers who write any Bahasa, English, or Arabic scientific work in the form of both research report and significant opinion on Hadith and Hadith Sciences and issues mentioned above. Any work published in this journal does not represent this journal editorial boardâ€™s opinion and perspective, but merely its writer findings and thought. For this reason, it is essential that the writer is fully responsible for whatever he or she wrote.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial team. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to one or two reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
- Accept, with editorial revisions: Which categorized as Minor Revision, Moderate Revision and Major Revision.
- Advise the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
- Recommend the author to submit the articles for publications in another journal.
- Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them; we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others are also under consideration. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms. We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether she/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.
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 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...
PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Journal of Hadith Studies has commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards for all those involved in publication of the journal. They include the author, the editors, the reviewers and the publisher.
The editor(s) of Journal of hadith Studies are accountable and responsible for selecting the submitted articles to be published in the journal. They will be guided by the policies of members of editorial board of the journal. In addition, they may confer with other editors or reviewers in making such a decision.
The process of review of articles and their publication are conducted in fair manner regardless of the authorsâ€™ backgrounds. This means that this journal does not take the authorsâ€™ racial, gender, sexual, ethnic, religious, national, political and philosophical backgrounds into account in publication of their articles.
The editor(s) and any editorial team members are prohibited to inform someone who is not appropriate. The information about the submitted articles can be disclosed only to the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisers, and publisher if necessary.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest:
In order to avoid conflict of interest, unpublished articles are prohibited to be used by editorâ€™s own interest. Information or ideas found in the articles during pee-review will be kept confidential. The fair peer-review procedure should be upheld by everyone involved in the process of selection and publication of articles.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations:
The editors will ensure the record of published articles by providing corrections and retractions if necessary and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer-review basically facilitates the editors to decide which of the articles should be published. In addition, through active communications with the authors, the editing process of the articles will be easier and the articles become better than before.
Any selected reviewers who feel unqualified to review the article should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received 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. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously 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 of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors should describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources:
Authors should adhere to publication requirements that there submitted work has originality, novelty, free from plagiarism, and has not been published elsewhere - fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. If an author has used the work and/or words of others, that this originality has been appropriately cited or quoted and accurately reflects individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting.
Data Access and Retention:
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data, if necessary, in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Authors should submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
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 manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Authorship of the Paper:
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution 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 there are others who 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 contribute to the making of the paper, and that all co-authors seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Fundamental errors in published works:
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
ASILHA (Asosiasi Ilmu Hadits Indonesia/Indonesian Hadith Sciences Association) as the publishers of Journal of hadith Studies, encourage the editors to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for the Editors. Publishers provide reasonable practical support to editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal. Publisher defines the relationship among publisher, editors and other parties in a contract, respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers), protect intellectual property and copyright, and foster editorial independence.
Publisher works with journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to: editorial independence, research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research, authorship, transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards, peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editors appeals and complaints.
Publisher works with journal editors to: communicate the journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers), review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines, maintain the integrity of the academic record, assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases, publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions, and publish content on a timely basis.
Authorship and plagiarism:
Submission to Journal of Hadith Studies means that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents. The corresponding (submitting) author is responsible for ensuring that this agreement has been reached, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors, needs to be approved by a letter signed by every author. The letter should be scanned and e-mailed to email@example.com by the corresponding author.
The Journal of hadith Studies assume that on multi-group collaborations at least one member of each collaboration, usually the most senior member of each submitting group or team, has accepted responsibility for the contributions to the manuscript from that team. The responsibilities of the corresponding authors are included, but not limited to ensure that:
- The article is an original work and does not involve fraud, fabrication, or plagiarism.
- The article has not been published previously and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. If accepted by the Journal of Hadith Studies, the article will not be submitted for publication to any other journal.
- The article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that infringes upon individual privacy or proprietary rights or any statutory copyright.
- Written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources the article was obtained.
- All authors have made significant contributions to the study including the conception and design of this work, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript.
- All authors have reviewed this manuscript and take responsibility for its content and approve its publication.
- Informed all the authors about the terms of this publishing agreement.