Predica Verbum: Jurnal Teologi dan Misi is a double-blind, peer-reviewed academic journal. This journal publishes articles that are based on academic research, conceptual ideas, critical analysis, and theoretical application in the fields of theology and Christian missions. It is published twice a year, in June and December.

The publication of articles in a double-blind, peer-reviewed system is an important part in the development of scholarly knowledge as it supports and embodies a scholarly approach. Therefore, Predica Verbum maintains a standard of ethical conduct on the part of all parties involved in the publication process—that is, the journal editors, reviewers, and authors. (This guide to publication ethics was adopted in accordance with Elsevier’s policy guidelines, which can be found here [add link].)

 

Ethical Standards for Editors

    1. Publication Decisions

The editors for the journal Predica Verbum are ultimately responsible for deciding which articles will be published from the articles that are accepted. This decision is based on the validity of the article and its contribution to researchers and readers. In carrying out this duty, the editors are guided by the policies of the editorial board and are subject to legal provisions that must be enforced, such those protecting against defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. An editor may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions.

    2. Objective Assessment

Editors will evaluate each manuscript based on its intellectual content alone and without discrimination toward the religion, ethnicity, tribal identity, gender, or nationality of the author.

    3. Confidentiality

Editors and the editorial staff must not disclose any information about manuscripts that have been received to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, and the editorial board.

    4. Conflict of Interest

Article material that is submitted to the journal Predica Verbum and has not yet been published may not be used for any editor’s personal research without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. An editor must refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has any kind of conflict of interest—for example, a competitive, collaborative, or other form of relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the manuscript.

    5. Investigative Cooperation

Editors must take responsive steps if ethical complaints are made regarding accepted manuscripts or published articles. The editors must give careful consideration to the complaint and may choose to contact the manuscript author. Editors may also undertake further communication with related research institutions or institutions. When the complaint has been resolved, matters such as the publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other such notes, will be considered.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

       1. Contribution toward the decision of the editor

The process of blind peer review helps editors in making decisions and can help writers in improving their writing through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component in formal academic communication and academic approaches.

        2. Punctuality

If the assigned reviewer feels that he or she does not have the qualifications to review a submission or knows that it is impossible to complete the review in a timely manner, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.

        3. Confidentiality

Every manuscript that has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The submission may not be shown to or discussed with anyone else without the explicit permission of the editor.

        4. Objectivity

Reviews must be completed in an objective manner. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must convey their opinions clearly and accompanied by supporting arguments.

        5. Originality and the proper citation of sources

If a reviewer identifies published material that has not been properly cited by the author, the reviewer must make a note of such material and document its source. The reviewer is obligated to notify the editor of any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published written, to the extent of the reviewer’s knowledge.

        6. Conflict of interest

Any unpublished material that is read by the reviewer may not be used in that reviewer's personal research without the written permission of the original author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. A reviewer should refuse to review a manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest due to a competitive, collaborative, or otherwise compromising relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the work.

 

Guidelines for Authors

       1. Writing standards

Authors must present articles that accurately reflect the research conducted and that provide an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article must be detailed enough and have sufficient references to allow others to replicate the research process. Fraud or the inaccurate presentation of material is unethical and unacceptable behavior.

       2. Access to research data

Authors may be asked to provide raw data for the writing that is reviewed and must be able to provide public access to such data, if possible. Authors must be able to retain the aforementioned data for a reasonable period after publication.

       3. Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical behavior in the publication of academic papers and is unacceptable. The author must ensure that all submitted work is original, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, the author must properly cite the source. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as presenting another person’s writing as your own, copying or rewriting a substantial part of another person’s work without mentioning the source, or claiming the results of research conducted by another. Even self-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is quoting the results or sentences from one’s own published work without mentioning the source.

       4. Terms of submission

An author may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical behavior in the publication of academic work and cannot be accepted.

      5. The acknowledgement of sources and influences

The work of others must always be acknowledged straightforwardly. Authors must mention publications that were influential in the preparation of their work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without the written permission of the source of the information.

       6. The authorship of the writing

An ”author” is any person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writing in the article. All parties who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. The author who corresponds with the editor must ensure that all co-authors have been listed in the manuscript, and that all co-authors have read, approve of the final version of the work, and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

       7. Errors in published work

If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her published work, it is the author's responsibility to immediately notify the journal editor, and to work with the editor to retract or correct the writing. If the editor obtains information from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, the author is responsible for immediately withdrawing or making corrections to the writing or providing evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original writing.