Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat (JPU) [Indonesian Journal of Indigenous Psychology] is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that stands as a forum to facilitate communication, dissemination, and enhancement of ideas within scholars in the field of psychology and social sciences by showcasing high-quality works while acknowledging its relevance in the indigenous perspective. JPU is a scholarly outlet for publishing high-quality works of social scientists, including students, around the world whose studies are related to a wide range of psychological topics in the Indonesian context (which typically employs samples of Indonesian people). Manuscripts submitted to JPU should emphasize the indigenous insights, which reflects sociocultural values within the Indonesian context, in discussing the study implications.

Submissions of wide ranges of empirical research in psychology are welcome, with a particular interest of manuscripts featuring the cultural and cross-cultural aspects through comparative studies or the application of psychological principles or theories in certain cultural contexts. JPU accepts manuscripts from the following subthemes:

  1. Cultural Psychology,
  2. Social Psychology,
  3. Interpersonal Relationships,
  4. Individual and Group Dynamics within Organizational Settings,
  5. Developmental Psychology,
  6. Development of Psychological Instruments,
  7. Educational Psychology,
  8. Clinical Psychology,
  9. Political Psychology.

To encourage more rapid and varying approach of knowledge dissemination, JPU accepts four types of manuscripts: original research, literature review, brief report, and commentary paper.  

  1. Original research – finding report of empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods designs). We welcome empirical study reports that have significant contributions towards the understanding of particular phenomena, regardless whether the results is/is not supporting the hypothesis, as long as the methods are appropriate and robust. We also accept report of replicable studies. The maximum length for this manuscript is 6,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 200 words for each language), main text, references, tables, and figures. 
  2. Literature Review – critical analysis of a particular topic, in either a narrative or systematic review. Literature review manuscript must address an important study gap. The manuscript must include method section, which details the process of choosing studies for analysis (the databases use, study criteria, etc.). Meta-analysis is encouraged in the systematic review manuscript. The maximum length for a literature review manuscript is 6,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 200 words for each language), main text, references, tables, and figures. 
  3. Brief report – reporting results of a pilot or ongoing empirical study. This type of manuscript allows a rapid dissemination of findings of cutting-edge topics that are parts of the ongoing project. The maximum length for a brief report manuscript is 3,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 100 words for each language), main text, tables, figures, and a maximum of 8 references. 
  4. Commentary paper ­­– a critical opinion or comment of contemporary topics or phenomena to increase scholars’ awareness and to encourage future studies. A commentary paper should identify an important yet understudied areas and is expressed in a critical and scientific style. The maximum length for a commentary paper is 3,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 100 words for each language), main text, tables, figures, and a maximum of 8 references.  

All published manuscripts are registered with DOI.

 

Section Policies

Original Research

Finding report of empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods designs). We welcome empirical study reports that have significant contributions towards the understanding of particular phenomena, regardless whether the results is/is not supporting the hypothesis, as long as the methods are appropriate and robust. We also accept report of replicable studies. The maximum length for this manuscript is 6,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 200 words for each language), main text, references, tables, and figures.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Literature Review

Critical analysis of a particular topic, in either a narrative or systematic review. Literature review manuscript mustaddress an important study gap. The manuscript must include method section, which details the process of choosing studies for analysis (the databases use, study criteria, etc.). Meta-analysis is encouraged in the systematic review manuscript. The maximum length for a literature review manuscript is 6,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 200 words for each language), main text, references, tables, and figures.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Report

Report of a pilot or ongoing empirical study. This type of manuscript allows a rapid dissemination of findings of cutting-edge topics that are parts of the ongoing project. The maximum length for a brief report manuscript is 3,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 100 words for each language), main text, tables, figures, and a maximum of 8 references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Commentary Paper

A critical opinion or comment of contemporary topics or phenomena to increase scholars’ awareness and to encourage future studies. A commentary paper should identify an important yet understudied areas and is expressed in a critical and scientific style. The maximum length for a commentary paper is 3,000 words, including bi-lingual abstract (of maximum 100 words for each language), main text, tables, figures, and a maximum of 8 references.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial Note

Commentary notes shared by the Editors.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

To increase effectiveness in the peer-review process, an initial screening by the editor is conducted for every submitted manuscript to determine its suitability with the scope of the journal and to ensure that the submitted manuscript adheres to the author’s guideline. The editor will then decide whether the submission is appropriate to be sent for review. An initial recommendation to revise the manuscript may be given by the editor prior sending it for review processes. The initial screening process is usually less than a week. 

Submissions that are considered eligible for review processes will then be assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers through a double-blind peer review process. The editor will then make an editorial decision after learning the reviewers’ comments and recommendation. There are four possible decisions:

  • ACCEPT as is,
  • MINOR REVISION (with no additional review round),
  • MAJOR REVISION (with additional review round of the revised draft),
  • REJECT.

We aim for the submission to have an editorial decision within 3 months, although this timeframe is highly dependent on the availability of the assigned reviewers. 

Copyediting process will begin upon manuscript acceptance and only after the author(s) submitted the signed informed consent for publication, which will be provided along with the acceptance notification email from the editor.

 

 

Publication Frequency

JPU has a regular publication schedule on every June and December.

 

Open Access Policy

JPU provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public and to support a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

JPU does not charge author fee for submission and publication of articles. 

 

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...

 

Publication Ethics

All involving parties of the publication process of Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat: Indonesian Journal of Indigenous Psychology (Editors, Reviewers, Authors) must adhere to the ethics of scientific publication. Our publication ethics is mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011). 


EDITOR’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

General Duties and Responsibilities

The editor is accountable for everything published in the journals, which implies the consequences to strive to meet the needs of readers and authors, constantly improve the journal, ensure freedom of expression, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and maintain the integrity of the academic record.

The editor is responsible to maintain neutrality and independence from personal values while treating article submissions.

 

Editorial Decisions

The editor is responsible to decide which submissions are eligible to be published. Evaluations must be made based on the scientific merits of the submitted manuscripts, and must be free of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political interests. The editorial decision must reflect significant contributions, originality, clarity, and novelty of the article and its relevance with the journal’s focus and scope. 

The editor should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.


Confidentiality

The editor and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to other parties than the corresponding author and the publisher, as appropriate. Manuscript that are sent to reviewers and potential reviewers must be anonymous. 

 

Peer Reviewers

The editor must actively seek the opinions of reviewers with relevant expertise to improve and maintain the quality of the published articles. All submitted articles must be submitted for double blind peer-review prior being able to be published. 

 

Quality Assurance 

The editor should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the published materials. The editor should encourage the authors to make appropriate improvements. 

 

Submissions by the Editor

The editor is allowed to submit his/her own work to the journal. However, the submission must be treated as a regular submission and must not be handled by the editor who authors the submission. 

 

Corrections and Retractions

The editor should make necessary steps to accommodate corrections and retractions of the published articles when significant errors are identified. 

 

Conflict of Interests

The editor should take reasonable actions to avoid handling submissions that has potential conflict of interests.  

 

REVIEWER’S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Relevance of the Expertise

The reviewer should evaluate the assigned manuscript based on his or her expertise within the field. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to the research topics in a manuscript they are assigned to should notify the editor or decline the invitation to review. 


Contribution to Editorial Decisions 

Comments and recommendation by the reviewer assist the editor in making editorial decisions. Regardless the recommendation, comments should also be useful to serve authors in improving the paper. 

 

Confidentiality 

Assigned manuscripts for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be disclosed to others without the editor’s consent. 

 

Reviewing Standard

Reviews should be conducted objectively, based on the merits of the paper and free from personal preference.

 

Reporting Published Article

The Reviewer is expected to notify the Editor should he or she suspects the assigned manuscript for review has been published elsewhere or is under consideration for publication in another journal.

 

Acknowledgement of Previous Works

The Reviewer is expected to refer the authors should relevant published works have not been cited in the reference section. 

 

Conflict of Interests

The Reviewer should not accept reviewing invitation of the manuscripts that he or she has conflicts of interests resulting from any connections with any of the authors or affiliations of the authors as expressed in the manuscript. 

 

AUTHORS’ DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Reporting Authorship

Authors should declare all contributing persons that meet criteria as Authors. The persons listed as contributing authors should have significant contribution in: 1). the process of collecting or interpreting data, 2). the preparation and writing of the manuscript, and 3). the accuracy and integrity of the scientific writing of the manuscript.

The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author is responsible to make sure that all co-authors have agreed to the submission for publication. 

 

Accuracy and Replicability

Authors should reflect an accurate work performed in data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The manuscript should contain sufficient information to allow other scholars in replicating the study. 

 

Data Access

Raw data may be asked to be provided during the review process, provided the data being anonymous, and therefore authors should have access towards the data reported in the manuscript. Authors should maintain accessibility to the data for at least ten years after publication. 

 

Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors must only submit entirely original works. Works of others that contributes to the study reported in the manuscript must be appropriately cited and acknowledged. Redundant or unnecessary citations must be avoided. 

 

Originality of the Work

Manuscripts that have been published as copyrighted materials cannot be submitted. Manuscripts under review by another journal also must not be submitted. The submitted manuscript must essentially reflect the originality of the work. 

 

Conflict of Interest

Authors should mention a statement disclosing any conflicts of interest that may potentially influence the results, interpretations, and justification of the findings. All funding sources should be disclosed.

 

Reporting Errors in Published Articles

It is the responsibility of the authors to notify the journal should they identify a significant error or inaccuracy of the published article. The journal will decide necessary steps to accommodate the authors’ report. 

 

__________________

 

References:

 

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/ Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf

 

Plagiarism Screening

JPU uses many platforms for plagiarism screening of every submission, including Google and iThenticate Software

 

Corrections and Retractions

In accordance with generally accepted standards of scholarly publishing, JPU does not alter articles after publication. In the case of serious errors or misconduct, however, JPU publishes corrections of serious errors that affect the article, but not fully invalidate the results. The correction note will be published and linked to the published article. The published article will be left as is, with no change.

 

Retractions is only possible if: 

  • there is a clear evidence that the presented findings are invalid and unreliable,
  • the article constitutes plagiarism,
  • the article has been published elsewhere,
  • the article reports unethical research.

 

The retraction note will be published and will replace the retracted article.