Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is an Indonesian journal that examines various issues related to and within the scope of government and political issues.

In particular, Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan focuses on local government issues, including governance, state and local politics, public policy, elections, e-government, and government leadership.

Within this scope, Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan accepts three types of manuscripts:

  1. Original research papers that combine rigor and relevance to advance the state-of-the-art and best practices in the field
  2. Significant theoretical contributions that consolidate or advance the state-of-the-art in the field
  3. Significant practical contributions that convey new and breakthrough ideas to advance the state of practice in the field

 

Section Policies

Artikel

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Restrictions

This section contains the article that was restricted. Restriction's policy is carried out because:
1. At the author's request
2. Found double publish in different journals.
3. Found plagiarism.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The reviewers of CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is composed of experts who are competent in the fields of government studies, politics and public policy, and other social sciences, and each works independently and professionally by upholding the ethical code of scientific publications as reviewers. The peer-review process of CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is as follows:

  1. The reviewers review, scan, and examine the incoming manuscript to be analyzed based on its conformity with their field of expertise. The reviewer has the right to refuse if it is not in accordance with their expertise and competence, and the Section Editor can redirect it to other appropriate reviewers.
  2. The reviewed manuscript is a double-blind review (without the identity of the writer and reviewer).
  3. The reviewers comprehend the manuscript based on the substance (article quality) within two weeks after the manuscript is received. If, within that period, the review of the manuscript has not been completed, the reviewer must confirm with the Editor in Chief of the journal.
  4. During the review process, the reviewers assess the manuscript through the review form available within an electronic journal application. If you find it difficult, reviewers can manually review the script on the checklist review form (Ms.Word format) sent by the Section Editor.
  5. The reviewed manuscript is returned to the Section Editor.
  6. The reviewer makes decisions on the results of the reviewed manuscript, including:
  • Accept Submission (manuscript is accepted).
  • Revisions Required (the manuscript needs to be revised by the author and returned to the reviewer).
  • Decline Submission (manuscript is declined).
  • See Comments (see comments, reviewers refuse subtly).

The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 2 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.

Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.

Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website.

 

Publication Frequency

CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan publishes articles twice a year. To speed up the spread of knowledge, we publish after the article is declared accepted for publication.

May - June (First Edition)

September - October (Second Edition)

February - March (Third Edition)

 

Open Access Policy

All manuscripts and information included in the CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan are open-access, free and can be used for scientific-academic, educational, research, and literary purposes.

 

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 and Malpractice Statement

Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, registered as ISSN 2442-5958 (Print), ISSN 2540-8674 (Online) is a peer-reviewed journal. Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan published bi-annually. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher (Department of Government, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Editors

The editor of the Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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 when making this decision.

1. Fair play

An editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content at any time without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

2. 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.

3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.

 

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

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

2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant 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 they have personal knowledge.

6. 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 with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Duties of Authors

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not generally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unacceptable publishing behavior.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

5. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly 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 others 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 in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other 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.

7. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Screening Plagiarism

Every manuscript submitted to Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan will be processed by screening plagiarism using https://turnitin.com/

 

Reference Management

uses the Mendeley Reference Management Software

 

Publication Fees

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Submission: 0.00 (IDN)

Fast-Track Review: 0.00 (IDN)

Article Publication: 3,000,000.00 (IDN)

 

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, CosmoGov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 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 2,000,000, paid upon official request from the author(s) in an email sent to CosmoGov Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan editor using the same email address used in correspondence.

CosmoGov Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 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.

CosmoGov Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 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

CosmoGov Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 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).