Author Guidelines

    1. The manuscript to be published to the Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia.  must be original, unpublished and not in the publishing process. The manuscript may be the result of research or theory review in the field of : Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia. is a peer-reviewed journal. Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia. invites academics and researchers who do original research in the sciences: Ilmiah The manuscript format is prepared in Indonesian or English and written in a concise and precise manner. Manuscripts will not exceed 14 pages including references and attachments. Scriptwriting templates can be accessed and downloaded on web
    2. The manuscripts are arranged in the order of titles (capital letters) in Indonesian and English, author names without title and affiliation and email correspondence of author, abstract and keywords, introductions, research methods, results and discussion, conclusions and suggestions, as well as a bibliography. Sub-sections can be added as needed. Systematics of writing is not required numbering in each chapter.
    3. The abstract consists of 100-250 words, typed one space consisting of problems, objectives, methods, results and conclusions, written in English for the Indonesian language script as well as in Indonesian and English for English manuscripts. After the abstract should be written keywords that fit the topic of research.
    4. All tables and figures should be given a title in the text and numbered in Arabic numerals as well as added captions if required.
    5. An author wishing to submit a paper to the Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia. should send it by email to web. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, takes place electronically.
    6. Article Categories: Authors must categorize their paper as part of the article information. The category which most closely describes their paper should be selected from the list below.
      • Research paper. This category covers papers which report on any type of research undertaken by the authors. The research may involve the construction or testing of a model or framework, action research, testing of data, market research or surveys, empirical, scientific or laboratory research. 
      • Technical paper. Describes and evaluates technical products, processes or services. 
      • Conceptual paper. These papers will not be based on research but will develop hypotheses. The papers are likely to be discursive and will cover philosophical discussions and comparative studies of others' work and thinking. 
      • Case study reports. Case studies describe actual interventions or experiences within organizations. They may well be subjective and will not generally report on research. A description of a legal case or a hypothetical case study used as a teaching exercise would also fit into this category. 
    7. Revised manuscript. The author has to revise the manuscript at least 1 month after being received from the Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia.management team (first edited paper). Papers sent back to the Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia.
    8.  management team after one month are considered new submissions. Revised printed manuscripts must be re-submitted 1 week after received from the Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia. management team.
    9. The bibliography or References are arranged alphabetically from the first and the next author. The References list only contains the references cited in the manuscript. If there are two manuscripts or more of the same author and year, mark with a, b, c, and so on after the year of publication. Consider the following example formats :

    The bibliography taken from the book is written in order: author's name, year, book title (italics),
    publisher name, city.
    Example:

    [1] Wigroho, H.Y., 2001, Frame Structure Analysis & Design Using SAP 2000 version 7.42, Andi Publisher, Yogyakarta.
    [2] ACI Committee 318, 1992, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-92) and Commentary (ACI 318R-92), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.


    Bibliography taken from magazines/journals and research results are written in order: author's name,
    year, title of article, name of journal/magazine/institution (italics), volume, page.
    Example:

    [1] Arfiadi, Y and Hadi, M.N.S., 2006, Continuous Bounded Controllers for Active Control
    of Structures, International Journal of Computers & Structures, vol. 84, no. 12, pp. 798-807.
    [2] Ervianto, W, I., 1998, Analysis of the Factors Causing Delay in Projects Construction, Research Report Atma Jaya University Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.

    Bibliography Taken from the Internet there are several ways of writing.
    Examples:

    [1] Brown, R., Shukla, A. And Natarajan, K.R., 2002, Fiber Reinforcement of Concrete
    Structures, accessed 30 October 2006, http://www.uritc.uri.edu/media/finalreportspdf/536101.pdf.
    [2] Shell Structures: Basic Concepts, accessed 10 November 2006, http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/courses.d/AFEM.d/AFEM.Ch29.d/AFEM.Ch29.pdf

    10. Script submission:
    Manuscripts are sent to the Secretariat of the Civil Engineering Journal, Faculty of Engineering,      Palembang University Jalan Darmapala I A Bukit Besar Palembang 30139 Tel. (0711) 442670 Fax. (0711) 442670. Manuscripts must be submitted in hardcopy and softcopy (file) form. Hardcopy can be sent by post or courier service. Meanwhile, softcopy of paper is recommended to be sent by e-mail. When sending by e-mail cannot be done, it can be replaced by sending files on a CD via postal or courier service. Manuscripts are typed in the word processing program Microsoft Word.
    Manuscripts are attached with name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address completely and completely clear for correspondence.
    11. The content of the writing is beyond the responsibility of the editor. Editors have the right to do editorial editing without changing the meaning.
    12. The submitted manuscript will be assessed for eligibility by the Expert Editor. The author whose script published does not receive a fee but will get one copy of the journal edition along with five loose print copies.

Manuscripts that report experiments or research in nursing and midwifery science and practice will be accepted for review as paper.
We are committed to ensuring that advertisements, reprints, or other commercial income do not have an impact or influence on editorial decisions.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. "Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable". Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

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 ( so its mean that manuscript at least have author and co author). 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 and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

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.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed PROTEIN is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recues themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

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.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review 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. Referees 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

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.