Focus and Scope
JHP17 (Jurnal Hasil Penelitian) is published by the Lembaga Penelitian Dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, as a medium of communication and dissemination of research results and scientific work in the field of maritime, advanced material, social humanities, psychology & cultural, energy. The JHP 17Â editorial is very open in accepting articles and book reviews related to our scope in the field ofÂ maritime, advanced material, social humanities, psychology & cultural, energy
Peer Review Process
The research article submitted to this online journal will be double blind peer-reviewed (Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other) at least 2 (two) reviewers. The accepted research articles will be available online following the journal peer-reviewing process. Language used in this journal is Indonesia.
For checking Plagiarism, JHP17 (Jurnal Hasil Penelitian) Editor will screen plagiarism manually (offline and online database) on the Title, Abstract, and Body Text of the manuscript, and by using Turnitin software. If it is found a plagiarism indication, editorial board will reject manuscript immediately.
- Editor recieving manuscript from author;
- Editor evaluate manuscript (journal aim and scope, in house style, supplementary data); (Rejected if not meet criteria)
- Editor screening for plagiarism on offline and online database manually; (Rejected if found major plagiarism, contacted author if found redunancy or minor plagiarism for clarification)
- Editor send manuscript to reviewer along with review form (double blind review, Both reviewer and author remain anonymous to each other);
- Reviewer send back his review form to Editor (with revised manuscript if necessary);
- Editor decision (rejected, require major revision, need minor revision, or accepted);
- Confirmation to the Author.
- If revision, author revised manuscripts andÂ should be returned to the editor without delay. Returned later than three months will be considered as new submissions.
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.
The Principle of Transparency and the Accountabilty
The principle of transparency is the fundamental protection of the scientific activity. It assumes the full clarity and accountability of processes that take place in science mainly, the spread of full list of information about the actions to all the interested individuals and the key parameters in order to verify them by the international scientific community. In the context of Predatory Journals practices, principle of transparency is understood as the willingness of Editorial Offices to be assessed by the international scientific community in case of reliability of their editorial processes while working with manuscripts (this means: the acceptance of manuscript, preliminary assessment, review, publication, and distribution). Maintaining the principle of transparency by journals is to enable to confirm that the Editorial Offices provide accountable scientific editorial services that are crucial for the scientific environment.
The accountable scientific editorial services may be understood as:
- Publishing complete information about the conditions needed for the articles to be published (the publication charges, the formal requirements of manuscripts, submission deadlines and the estimated time of manuscript acceptance to the first review and manuscript publication)
- Transparent criteria of manuscript rejection (when its topic is inconsistent with the journal’s profile, publisher’s policy, publisher’s requirements or when its scientific quality is not enough to be published),
- Feedback for the author on each step of editorial process,
- Transparent principles of review (including the selection of reviewers who are specialists in a particular study, preferably from different affiliation than the author of a publication),
- The proper review standards (parametrical and qualitative assessment of manuscript) as well as peer review dialog,
- Sharing the full content of scientific articles along with the data which served as the source for conclusions in electronic version in open access.
Standard of Scientific Review
JHP17 (Jurnal Hasil Penelitian) Experts pay attention to the fact that nowadays the values of scientific work reviews ale underrated. An accountable review based on the peer review dialog is crucial for the scientific activity and increasement of the scientists competencies. The most challenging actions for those who create the scientific policy at universities, associations, scientific academies, and for those who financially regulate the scientific activities are development and implementation of high standards of scientific reviews. Having more than fifteen years’ experience in releasing the scientific journals, we recommend the given components of a proper scientific review:
- Parametric assessment of manuscript, these are the closed-ended questions in review questionnaire. They consists of criteria suggested by the Editorial Office, such as topicality of discussed issues, originality of the theses or the substantive level of publications which are assessed by the reviewer who gives special points for them.
- Qualitative assessment of manuscript is a descriptive part of the review, where the reviewer indicates the positive as well as negative sides of the assessed article.
- Peer review dialog is a written form of communication between the author of a particular publication and a person who conducts the review. It can also mean all changes that, according to the reviewer, the author should introduce to the work. Peer review dialog indicates that the manuscripts were reviewed properly. Consequently, these manuscripts may be accepted to the publication, on the condition that the necessary changes are introduced.
The practice proposed by Index Copernicus, which is an exemplification of the transparency of reliable editorial services, is publishing by the Editorial Office part of the review containing at least one positive as well as negative remark concerning the authenticity of presented in the work researches plus their influence on the development or spread of study. This practice can be helpful for the general audience to familiarize with the initial opinion about a given work, as well as it can be a supplement to the article’s abstract.