About the Journal

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Since 2024, FAZA has only focused on article themes related to Sharia and Law, such as:

  1. Islamic Law
  2. Business Law
  3. Family Law
  4. Constitutional Law 
  5. Policy and Political Law 
  6. Islamic Astronomy 
  7. Islamic Legal Thought

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Some policies in the review of FAZA:

  1. Reviewers will review any submitted paper.
  2. Review process employs a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.
  3. In the review process, reviewers consider the correspondence of title, abstract, discussion (findings) and conclusions. Beside, reviewers also examine the novelty, scientific impact, and references used in the paper.
 

Publication Frequency

FAZA: Jurnal Syariah, Hukum, dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam publish articles three times a year. to speed up the spread of knowledge we publish after the article is declared accepted for publication.

  1. January - June (Edition One)
  2. July - December (Edition Two)
 

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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

FAZA: Jurnal Syariah, Hukum, dan Pemikiran Hukum Islam is a peer-reviewed journal published by Syariah Faculty of UIN Siber Syekh Nurjati Cirebon. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewed and the publisher. This statement based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Faza is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. 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 essential 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. 

Syariah Faculty of UIN Cyber Syekh Nurjati Cirebon as publisher of Jurnal Faza takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing exceptionally seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, of Syariah Faculty of UIN Siber Syekh Nurjati Cirebon, and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of the Faza is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should publish. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates 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 use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help the author in improving the paper.

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 treat as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should conduct 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 reported should accompany by the appropriate 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

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.

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.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are 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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), 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 actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has appropriately cited or quoted.

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 paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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.

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 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 article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

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.

 

Screening Plagiarism

Every submitted paper will go through plagiarism screening by Turnitin.

 

Reference Management

uses the Mendeley Reference Management Software

 

Retraction and/or Corrections

Authors are discouraged from withdrawing submitted manuscripts after it is in the publication process (review, copyedit, layout, etc.,). During the time, FAZA had spent valuable resources besides time spent in the process. Should under any circumstances that the author(s) still request for a withdrawal, author(s) should pay back every effort put into the manuscript processes at an amount of IDR 100,000. Paid upon official request from the author(s) in an email sent to FAZA  editor using the same email address used in correspondence.

 

FAZA editors shall consider retracting a publication if:

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation);
  2. It constitutes plagiarism;
  3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication);
  4. It contains material or data without authorisation for use;
  5. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy);
  6. It reports unethical research;
  7. It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
  8. The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction would:

  1.  Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions);
  2. Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article);
  3. Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment);
  4. Be published promptly to minimise the harmful effects;
  5. Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers);
  6. State who is retracting the article;
  7. State the reason(s) for retraction;
  8. Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language.
Retractions are not usually appropriate if: 
  1. The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings;
  2. The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns;
  3. An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation;
  4. Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

FAZA editors shall consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  1.  they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors;
  2. there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case;
  3. they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be, fair and impartial, or conclusive;
  4. an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time

FAZA editors shall consider issuing a correction if:

  1. a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error);
  2. the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included);
  3. The mechanism follows the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Author Fees

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)
Authors are required to pay an Article Submission Fee as part of the submission process to contribute to review costs.

Fast-Track Review: 100.000 (IDR)
With the payment of this fee, the review, editorial decision, and author notification on this manuscript is guaranteed to take place within 4 weeks.

Article Publication: 0.00(IDR)
If this paper is accepted for publication, you will be asked to pay an Article Publication Fee to cover publications costs.

If you do not have funds to pay such fees, you will have an opportunity to waive each fee. We do not want fees to prevent the publication of worthy work.