- AUTHOR
Authors should refer to the journal template format and style. All documents that do not meet the requirements of the author guidelines will not be processed.
According to the journal’s guidelines, the author of each submitted paper is required to appoint three possible reviewers for the given article. The editors of the journal would appreciate it if you could send us the names and full contact details (including correct e-mail addresses) of three people with significant experience in the field covered by your paper. The editor then selects one of them and sends them the paper, asking if they would be willing to act as a reviewer for your paper. The editor sends your paper to two additional reviewers.
Once you send us a proposal for reviewers, your paper (if it meets the author guidelines) will be sent for review. The editor will notify you of the results of the review as soon as possible, expectedly within 30-60 days.
SUBMENU
- POLICIES AND ETHICS
Open Access Policy
The journal adheres to best practice and high publication standards and complies with the following standards:
- Immediate disclosure of information based on the availability of research in order to support international knowledge exchange;
- Allows authors to retain copyright and publishing rights without due process;
- Storing information with a digital preservation program or in an archive;
- Use of DOI as permanent identifier;
- Include machine-readable CC license information in articles;
- Permission to reuse and share this content under the CC BY-NC license;
- It is possible to provide article-level metadata for any referrer and contact;
- For example, register the deposit policy in the deposit policy list., e.g. Sherpa/Romeo
- AUTHOR CHECKLIST
Submission Preparation Checklist
As part of the submission process, authors should check that their submission meets all of the items below, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not comply with these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published and has not been considered (or described in a Note to the Editor) by any other journal.
- Files sent in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF or WordPerfect document file format.
- Where available, we have provided the URL for the link.
- The text meets the stylistic and bibliographic requirements set out in the author’s guidelines, which can be found in About the Journal.
- COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright Notice
Copyright of the article is transferred to the Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES) if and when the article is approved for publication. The undersigned assigns to IAES all rights, including copyright, in this document. The undersigned represents and warrants that the paper is the original author, except where the original source is clearly identified, with the permission of the copyright holders where necessary. The undersigned hereby declares that he/she has the power and authority to execute and execute this deed.
The author acknowledges and agrees to be responsible for this content on behalf of all other authors. If applicable, this agreement must be signed by an authorized signatory. No change in signature or order of signatures shall be permitted unless the agreement has been submitted with the signature of the corresponding signature.
- PUBLICATION ETHICS
Ethics topics to consider when publishing
Publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals is an important foundation for creating a coherent and respected network of knowledge. This directly reflects the quality of the author’s work and the institutions that support it. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is important to agree on standards of ethical behavior expected for all parties involved in publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.
When making publication decisions, journal editors decide which articles to submit to the journals they wish to publish. Validation and the importance of the study to researchers and readers can always guide these decisions. Editors may be governed by the rules of the journal’s editorial board and may be limited by applicable laws regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can consult with other editors or reviewers when making decisions.
- EDITORS
Role of Editor
The editor’s responsibility is to protect and enhance the knowledge and quality of the journal as much as possible.
You are responsible for the content of the magazine. You must ensure that the aim, scope and content of the journal by including published works are relevant to any changes in the research field. You will work closely with the magazine publishing staff to ensure that the work is carried out in line with market developments. Neither you nor the publishing staff make any recommendations based on your experience or additional sources of information.
SUBMENU EDITORS
- EDITORIAL BOARDS
Most journals operate under the guidance of an editorial board, which provides expert advice on content, recruiting new authors and recommendations.
The Editorial Board, or (Editorial) Advisory Board, is a team of experts in the journal’s field. Editorial board members:
- Review the submitted manuscripts.
- Advice on journal policy and scope.
- Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.
- Attract new authors and submissions.
- Promote the journal to their colleagues and peers.
- Assist the editor(s) in decision making over issues such as plagiarism claims and submissions where reviewers can’t agree on a decision.
- SELECTING EDITOR
The members of the editorial board are appointed by the editor of the journal, with the cooperation of the publisher. Boards of directors are fully reviewed every two to three years, with members joining, resigning or taking a break for a term. This may change over time, for example if a member leaves.
A journal’s editorial board can affect its quality, so editors should consider the following:
- The location of board members should represent the reach of the journal
- Board members’ expertise should represent the journal’s scope
- Representatives should be appointed from key research institutes
- Former guest editors of special issues, and authors of key reviews, and top reviewers may be suitable
- Existing board members may have suggestions for new members
To join a journal’s editorial board, find the journal and contact the editor on the Editorial Board List page.
- RESPONSIBILITIES
In your role you should: - Ensure a supply of high-quality manuscripts to Elsevier in quantities that are able to maintain the publishing schedule of the journal. If insufficient manuscripts are being submitted, then you should discuss how to address this with your publishing contract.
- Ensure that the subject matter of the manuscripts reflects any changes of direction in the field of study to incorporate newly-emerging work (this may necessitate inviting articles or special issues).
- Conduct your activities in accordance with generally accepted industry standards for integrity and objectivity and with the policies of the journal and the publisher. We further recommend that you consult the COPE short guide to ethical editing.
- Select the Editorial Board, in co-operation with your publishing contract.
- Continually engage the Editorial Board on the progress of the journal and update and include them on ideas for editorial development. The Editorial Board should be involved formally through an annual Editorial Board meeting or informally in ad hoc meetings and discussions.
- Provide strategic input into your journal’s development. Your publishing contract will be in touch regularly to report on the journal’s performance and suggest possible strategies for development, as well as discuss your suggestions.
- Highlight commercial advertising, supplement, and reprint opportunities, if these form important sources of income for your journal.
- Promote the journal to peers and colleagues.
- ADDITIONAL EDITOR
Generally, a journal will have multiple editors if:
1. Very large and the number of submissions is too large for one editor and/or to handle
2. The scope of the journal is so broad that it is impossible for one editor to make informed decisions regarding submissions on all topics.
Multiple editors may sit between the Editor(s)-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, and can also be referred to as:
- Co-Editors
- Associate Editors
- Section Editors
- Editorial Advisors
- Editorial Committee Members
If you are working with additional editors, then papers may be divided between you on the basis of:
- Geographical origin.
- Specialization.
- Type of contribution, such as original articles or reviews.
- Equal division of labor.
Multiple editors may have different roles, depending on the journal. Your publishing contract will be able to advise you on these.
Decission Tree
- Authorship complaints. (di hubungkan ke web ini : https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/authorship-complaints)
- Plagiarism complaints (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/plagiarism-complaints)
- Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/simultaneous submission (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/multiple-duplicate-concurrent-publication-simultaneous-submission)
- Research results misappropriation (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/research-results-misappropriation)
- Allegations of research errors and fraud (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/allegations-of-research-errors-and-fraud)
- Research standards violations (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/research-standards-violations)
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/undisclosed-conflicts-of-interest)
- Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers (https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk/reviewer-bias-or-competitive-harmful-acts)
- REVIEWERS
Role of Reviewer
Reviewing requires time and a certain amount of expertise.
Reviewers evaluate articles submitted to journals based on journal requirements, predetermined criteria, as well as the quality, completeness, and accuracy of the research presented. They provide feedback on the paper, suggest improvements, and recommend to the editor whether to accept, reject, or request changes. The final decision always rests with the editor, but reviewers play an important role in determining the outcome.
SUB MENU REVIEWERS
- GETTING STARTED
Before accepting or declining a review invitation, consider the following questions:
1. Is the article relevant to your area of expertise? Only accept it if you feel you can provide good quality feedback.
2. Is there a potential conflict of interest? Explain this to the editor when you respond.
3. Do you have time? Reviewing is a lot of work – make sure you can meet the deadline before you commit.
4. Want to learn more about the review and peer review process? If so, check out Elsevier Researcher Academy’s free tutorials, especially the Certified Peer Reviewer course.
Respond immediately to the invitation (even if you decline) – delaying the decision will slow down the review process and mean a longer wait for the author. If you decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for other reviewers.
- MANAGING
If so, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you cannot share it with anyone without the editor’s prior permission. Because feedback is confidential, do not share feedback information with anyone without permission from the editor and author.
If the manuscript you are currently reviewing reports an experiment, check the methods section first. The following cases can be considered a significant disadvantage and must be taken into account:
1. Bad methodology
2. Unauthorized method
3. Missing procedures known to be effective in the reported study area
4. Results contrary to the statistical or qualitative evidence presented in the manuscript
For analytical documentation, check the sampling protocol, which is mandatory for time-dependent studies. For qualitative research, be sure to present systematic data analysis and include appropriate descriptive elements with relevant interview quotes in addition to the author’s narrative.
- STRUCTURING
Your feedback helps the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It also helps the author and improves the manuscript. It is important that you give your general opinion and general comment about the article. Your comments should be polite and constructive and should not contain ad hominem comments or personal information, including your name (unless the journal you are invited to uses open reviews).
It is important to report possible deficiencies. Explain and support your decision so that both editors and authors fully understand the reasons behind your comments. Indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflect data and evidence.
Finally, the editor decides to accept or reject the article. Elsevier had no role in this decision. The editor will consider all opinions and may ask the author for another opinion or a revised article before making a decision. If the journal has opted in to this feature, the submission system notifies reviewers of the final decision.
- FINISHING
After submitting your review, you may want to use Elsevier’s review recognition platform to get credit for your work. The platform provides a personal profile page, certificates, editorial recognition and discounts for Elsevier services.
If you use a Mendeley profile, your browsing activities are automatically recorded. Your review history will be displayed on your profile, detailing your articles, positions and editorial work, and your participation in the peer review process.
Remember that even after the review is complete, you must treat the article and any related files or data as a confidential document. This means that you may not share this information or information about the review with anyone without first getting permission from the editor.
Finally, on behalf of the journal, the editors, and the author(s), we would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide your valuable input for this article.
Peer Review Process
1. Accounting majors complete a full year of accounting: Principles of Accounting I. and II., during the year.
2. As a Junior, you must enroll in an internship program. Accounting I and II reflect a thorough understanding of accounting practices, theory, and financial reporting.
3. The senior year is a great opportunity to specialize in an area of interest by combining accounting topics with electives of your choice.
4. Through independent training programs, we help students prepare for the Accountant exam.