e-ISSN 2355-6641       print ISSN 1978-1989

sample cover

The South East Asian Journal of Management

ISSN: 1978-1989

e-ISSN: 2355-6641

PUBLISHER

:Management Research Center, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business University of Indonesia
ADDRESS:Department of Management Bld. 2nd Floor, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia Depok  16424
PHONE/FAX:+62-21-7272425 ext 909, +62-21-7863556
EMAIL
seam@ui.ac.id
INDEXATION:DOAJ, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, IPI
EDITORIAL BOARD:

Editor in Chief      : Dr. Sri Rahayu Hijrah Hati

Vice Editor          : Dr, Dony Abdul Chalid

Managing Editor   : Anis Wahyu Intan Maris

ACCREDITATION STATUS
:

The South East Asian Journal of Management received accreditation for academic journal by the Indonesian Directorate of Higher Education (DIKTI).


Read more

Editor in Chief Sri Rahayu Hijrah Hati  |  Full editorial board

Statistics  |  Citations


Don't have any account? click Register

Vol 10, No 1 (2016): April 2016 (In Press)


STATEMENT OF ETHICS

Adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

This is the statement of ethics for journals published by the Management Research Center (MRC), i.e. The South East Asian Journal of Management (SEAM), Indonesian Capital Market Review (ICMR) and the ASEAN Marketing Journal (AMJ). This statement covers code of ethics for authors, editors and reviewers.

 

CODE OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS

Originality:

Authors must submit original works only.

Authors must not submit the same work to other journal at the same time or while the manuscript is under review. Authors must wait for a rejection decision or formally request for withdrawal before submitting to another journal.

The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, except as a conference proceedings paper, where the paper is work in progress toward the submitted manuscript. Author must inform in the manuscript if it was published previously as conference paper.

Author must properly cite all existing works which may overlaps or used as material for the manuscript, both in the body text and in the reference list.

Authors must explicitly cite their own earlier works used as material in the manuscript. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material should be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited in a way that does not compromise the double-blind review process.

The manuscript should identify the origin and originality, of the datasets used in the paper, such as data collected through survey. Authors should mention if the dataset has been used elsewhere by this or another Author, whether published or not.

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism:

All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material.

Authors are expected to explicitly cite others' work and ideas, even if the work or ideas are not quoted verbatim or paraphrased. This standard applies whether the previous work is published, unpublished, or electronically available. Failure to properly cite the work of others may constitute plagiarism. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Redundancy (or “self-plagiarism”) is an unacceptable publishing behavior. Redundancy can occur in at least two ways: (1) Authors recycle portions of their previous writings by using identical or nearly identical sentences or paragraphs from earlier writings in subsequent research papers, without quotation or acknowledgement; or (2) Authors create multiple papers that are slight variations on each other, which are submitted for publication in different journals but without acknowledgement of the other papers.

Authors can and often do develop different aspects of an argument in more than one manuscript. However, manuscripts that differ primarily in appearance, but are presented as separate and distinct research without acknowledging other related work, constitute attempts (whether unintentional or deliberate) to deceive reviewers and readers by overinflating the intellectual contribution of the manuscript. Since publication decisions are influenced by the novelty and innovativeness of manuscripts, such deception is inappropriate and unethical.

If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material must be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited.

MRC reserves the right to evaluate issues of plagiarism and redundancy on a case-by-case basis.

Conflicts of Interest:

Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process. Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.

All such interests (or their absence) should be declared in writing by Authors upon submission of the manuscript. If any are declared, they should be published with the article. If there is doubt about whether a circumstance represents a conflict, it should be disclosed, so that Editors may assess its significance. Any queries about possible conflicts of interest should be addressed to the MRC Office or the Editor-in-Chiefs of the respective journals.

Double-Blind Review:

MRC journals follow double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa. For example, the manuscript should not include any self-revealing information that would identify the Author to a Reviewer.

Accuracy:

Authors have the ultimate responsibility for all materials included in a submitted manuscript. Authors are obligated to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.

Authors should report their findings fully and should not omit data that are relevant within the context of the research question(s). Results should be reported whether they support or contradict expected outcomes. Authors should take particular care to present relevant qualifications to their research or to the findings and interpretations of them. Underlying assumptions, theories, methods, measures and research designs relevant to the findings and interpretations of their work should be disclosed.

The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit peers with access to the same dataset to repeat the work.

Co-Authorship:

All Co-Authors of papers should have made significant contributions to the work and share accountability for the results. Authorship and credit should be shared in proportion to the various parties' contributions. Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. Other contributions should be cited in the manuscript's Acknowledgements or an endnote.

Authors should normally list a student as the principal Co-Author on multiple-authored publications that substantially derive from the student's dissertation or thesis.

Authors who analyze data from others should explicitly acknowledge the contribution of the initial researchers.

Human Subjects:

Authors have a responsibility to preserve and protect the privacy, dignity, well-being and freedom of human subjects and research participants. Informed consent should be sought from all human subjects, and if confidentiality or anonymity is requested it should be honored.

Manuscripts involving human subjects (surveys, simulations, interviews) should comply with the relevant Human Subject Protocol requirements at the Author's university.

Copyright Law:

Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications) and secure the necessary permissions before submission.

Timeliness:

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given, the Author should contact the Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.

Post publication:

Authors must ask for permission to publish their article (or a selection from the article) elsewhere, such as an article later appearing as a book chapter or as a translation.

CODE OF ETHICS FOR EDITORS

Independence:

The Editors must maintain their editorial independence. Responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors, using recommendations from Reviewers. However, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.

Unbiased:

Editors should exercise their position of privilege in a confidential, unbiased, prompt, constructive and sensitive manner. Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.

Conflict of Interest:

Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one.

In order to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, current members of the Editorial board may not publish a manuscript in their own Journal, either as sole-author or as co-author.

Confidentiality:

Editors and their editorial staff shall not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than the editorial board. Office procedures should be in place to maintain confidentiality of the review process. MRC journals follow double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind review process and not divulge any information that might identify Authors to Reviewers or vice versa. Editors should ensure that their staff members conform to this practice. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should 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 should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Review Quality:

Normally, three Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript, but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. The Editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an Editor may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate.

Timeliness:

Editors should take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review.

 

Accuracy:

An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should promptly inform the Author. If similar evidence is presented for a published manuscript, the Editor should ensure prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.

 


 

CODE OF ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS

Reciprocity:

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to MRC are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal afterwards as Guest Reviewer.

Right of Refusal:

Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a Reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest. If asked to review a manuscript they have previously reviewed, Reviewers should make that prior review known to the Editor, unless it is clear that they are being asked to provide a reappraisal.

Double-Blind Review:

MRC journals employ double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Conflict of Interest:

Normally, Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest. Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should reveal that conflict to the Editor, who will then determine their appropriate level of involvement. An example occurs when the Reviewer has a similar manuscript under review in the same or another journal or a similar research project nearing completion. Note that under the double-blind review process, since Reviewers do not know Authors, Reviewers are unlikely to be aware of and are therefore not bound by conflicts of interest involving Authors. If Reviewers do become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the Editor.

Unbiased:

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Confidentiality:

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the Editors, nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission. If Reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the Journal that they may do so.

Accuracy:

In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the Author(s), Reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the Author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that is, they should provide sufficient detail to the Author to justify their recommendation to the Editor.

Timeliness:

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.


ISSN: 1978-1989

Announcements

Message from Editorial Board: References Writing Guidelines

 
The authors shall make sure that the references is written according to APA.  
Posted: 2016-02-24 More...
 

Message from Editorial Board: SEAM's Template

 
The authors shall check their manuscripts before submission and make sure that their manuscripts comply to our writing style as indicated in SEAM's template.   
Posted: 2016-02-24 More...
 

Conference Event: THE 10th ICBMR 2016

 
THE 10th ICBMR 2016

ENHANCING BUSINESS STABILITY THROUGH COLLABORATION

 

Lombok-Indonesia, October 25-27,  2016

Website: www.icbmr.org and Email:organizer@icbmr.org

 

 
Posted: 2016-02-20 More...
 
More Announcements...