Organum: Jurnal Saintifik Manajemen dan Akuntansi invites particularly manuscripts or research-based articles in the diverse topics include functional areas of human resources management, financial management, marketing management, operation management, educational management, and accounting. The manuscripts or research-based articles that will be accepted are qualitative, quantitative research and mixed method written either in Bahasa or English.

Organum invites manuscripts in the areas:

• Human Resource Management
• Financial Management
• Marketing Management
• Operations Management
• Educational Management
• Accounting

1. Manuscript Submission
   
   Each manuscript or research-based articles submitted will be examined by the Editorial Board in accordance with sub-fields of researches and in conformity with the format and guidelines of Organum.
   
   
2. Editor Evaluation
   
   Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Similarity checking by using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript. Manuscripts that considered have potential interest to our readership and eligible by the editor will be either returned to the author for revision or sent to the reviewers in a double-blind review. 
   
   
3. Double-Blind Review Process
   
   In double-blind peer review, both the authors and reviewers keep their anonymity. Only the editor knows the identity of all parties involved. The reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Reviewer, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength, quality of the paper, evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
   
   
4. Paper Revision (by Author)
   
   Author must show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature. 
   
   
5. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author)
   
   Detail information of revision submission Open Journal System Guidelines click here.
   
   
6. Editor Decision
   
   Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
   
   
7. Confirmation to the authors
   
   If reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor).
   
   
8. Galley proof and publishing process
   
   

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Ethical guidelines for journal publication

The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journals published by, Faculty of Economics and Business of Winaya Mukti University is the process of permanent knowledge improvement. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.

Faculty of Economics and Business of Winaya Mukti University takes their duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

Duties of authors

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, 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.

Acknowledgment 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. 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 co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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 editors

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). 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 (or society officers) in making this decision.

Non-Discrimination

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

Authors who publish their articles in Organum agree to the following terms:

(1) Authors grant the copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

(2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.

(3) The author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Organum does not charge any processing or publishing fees for every article published.

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Submission FREE: 0.00 (IDR)

Fast-Track Review FREE: 0.00 (IDR)

Article Publication FREE: 0.00 (IDR)

Reviewer Policy and Open Journal System Guidelines (Indonesia)

Confidentiality

The manuscripts to be reviewed are considered confidential communication. Once an unpublished manuscript is set in a fixed, tangible form (e.g., typed on a page), it is entitled to copyright protection. The author of unpublished manuscript owns the copyright and is entitled to the same rights as an author of a published work. As such, the reviewer may not engage in the circulation, quotation, citation, or reference of the unpublished manuscript, nor may he/she uses the information contained within the unpublished manuscript to further his/her works without explicit permission from the author. Before sharing the unpublished manuscript with any other person, such as a colleague or student, a reviewer must receive permission from the Editor or Section Editor. It is not acceptable to share the manuscript with students for educational purposes. Reviewer is expected to delete/destroy copies of the manuscript upon completion of the review. An exception to this rule allows the reviewer to retain one copy of the manuscript until the reviewer has received a copy of the decision letter and other reviews of the manuscript from the Editor or Section Editor. Once these materials are reviewed, the reviewer must delete/destroy any remaining copies of the manuscript.

Organum journal operates according to the double-blind peer review model, and so the respective identities of the author and reviewer remain hidden. To help preserve the integrity of this process, please do not reveal any identity within the text of the review.

How to Change or Blank User Name and Initial in Microsoft Word

The reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Reviewer, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength, quality of the paper, evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

• Is the article requested to be reviewed under reviewer expertise?

If the reviewer receives a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of his/her expertise, please notify the Editor or Section Editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.

• Does the reviewer have the time to review this paper?

The review process must be completed within two weeks. If the reviewer agrees and requires a more extended period, notify the Editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

• Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify the reviewer as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the Editor before reviewing. Examples of conflicts of interest include recent collaborations, faculty colleagues, students, financial gain stemming from the acceptation or rejection of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest appears to exist, the manuscript will be reassigned, and the reviewer should immediately delete/destroy all copies of the manuscript.

Roles of the Reviewer

Organum reviewer fulfills two integral roles within the scientific peer-review process: gatekeeper and consultant. As a gatekeeper, a reviewer is tasked with submitting a recommendation to the Editor Section Editor regarding the acceptance, rejection, or revision and resubmission of the manuscript to the authors. The importance of this role should not be underestimated, as published articles within Organum become permanent works within the scientific literature and ultimately influence the work of future readers. Reviewer is encouraged to exercise conscientiousness with their responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the posterity of published works within the scientific literature.

As a consultant, a reviewer is tasked with submitting a constructive and sufficiently detailed narrative appraisal to the Editor or Section Editor, who is responsible for providing this information to the authors. Despite the inability of Organum to publish every article submitted, a reviewer is tasked with providing thorough feedback to authors regardless of a manuscript’s acceptance status. This feedback should encourage authors of rejected manuscripts to revise and resubmit their best works, as well as provide authors of accepted manuscripts with direction for future manuscripts.

A reviewer may find it challenging to perform the roles gatekeeper and consultant simultaneously; instead of focusing on one role at a time. Reviewer is encouraged to utilize tactful candor when pointing out errors within a manuscript, maintaining collegial respect for the authors. 

The Differences between Minor and Major Revisions

Minor revisions may more often require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, the type of which that would not take too much more time. These may be to bring the paper more in line with author guidelines with a slightly reduced word count, formatting changes or the labeling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the extant research literature; or to elaborate a little more on the research findings.

Major revisions might require the author to make more significant improvements, the type of which that may take weeks or even months rather than days. The author may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis, or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.

The exact motivations behind an Editor or Section Editor's decision are always unique. Importantly, constructive feedback should be provided by the reviewers so that the author is clear on how to improve their papers.

Mayor and Minor Revisions in Review Form

Originality

Does the article say something new and interesting enough to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to consider the article in the context of the wider published research, using tools such as Web of Science or Scopus. How does it compare to the most highly cited or downloaded papers in the field? If the research has been covered previously, forward any relevant references to the Editor or Section Editor.

Plagiarism

If you have reason to believe that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the Editor or Section Editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Defamation/Libel

If inaccurate, unsubstantiated or emotive statements are made about organizations or people in a submitted article, please let the Editor or Section Editor know. If it is considered that the article could be potentially libelous, clarification will be sought from the author.

Fraud

Although it can be very difficult to detect if you suspect the results in an article to be falsified, please raise the matter with the Editor or Section Editor.

Layout and Format

The author must comply fully with the journal’s author guidelines, which include manuscript presentation. If the author has clearly failed to present the article according to these guidelines and the Editor or Section Editor has not already highlighted this in the invitation to review, the reviewer should flag this to the Editor or note this in his or her review. If the paper is particularly original or interesting, the Editor or Section Editor may choose to overlook the formatting issues throughout the peer review process and ask the author to address these only shortly prior to eventual acceptance, but at other times the Editor or Section Editor may ask the author to restructure the paper before progressing it any further.

Language

Does the quality of English make it difficult to understand the author’s argument? If this is the case, you do not need to correct the English but should instead mention this as part of your review. In extreme cases where an interesting or original contribution is undermined by the poor quality of expression, you may bring this to the attention of the Editor or Section Editor who can then advise of sub-editing services.

Structure and Content

Title

Does it clearly describe the article? Does it include the most relevant keywords and demonstrate the significance of the research? Does it make sense?

Structured Abstract

Have all mandatory fields been completed? Does it accurately reflect the content of the article?

Introduction

Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is it clear how this is being challenged or built upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted?

Literature

Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

Methodology

Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Does the article outline the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Is there sufficient information present for the reader to replicate the research? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results and Discussions

This is where the author should explain what was discovered in the research. Are the results presented clearly? Are the findings consistent with the author’s expectations? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? A reviewer should consider the merits and appropriateness of the author’s analysis.

Conclusion 

Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Does the author explain how the research has added to the body of knowledge?

Statistical errors

These are common, and attention should be paid.

Graphics and Tables

Where these are included, please check the content and if possible, make suggestions for improvements. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an essential part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they presented consistently (e.g., in the same format throughout)?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License