Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

FOCUS

publishes articles which deal with most areas of accounting including auditing, taxation financial accounting, and management accounting

SCOPE

 

 

  1. Accounting Theory
  2. Financial Accounting
  3. Managerial Accounting
  4. Accounting Principles
  5. Intermediate Financial Reporting
  6. Financial Statement Analysis
  7. Strategic Cost Management
  8. Differential Accounting
  9. Accounting Information Systems
  10. Auditing
  11. Government Accounting
  12. Accounting in Not-for-Profit Organizations
  13. Accounting Ethics
  14. Syariah Accounting
  15. International Financial Reporting
  16. Forensic Accounting
  17. Accounting Research and Analysis
  18. Accounting for Mergers, Acquisitions and Complex Financial Structures
  19. Value Analysis
  20. Corporate Tax
  21. Individual Tax Accounting and Planning
  22. Taxes and Business Strategy
  23. Taxation Procedures for Estates, Trusts and Partnerships
  24. Taxation Procedures for C Corps and S Corps
  25. Payroll and Business Tax Accounting

 

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Every article submitted to the editor will be received first by the staff editor then selected the selection editor for the next stage. the next stage through the Initial Review process by the selection Editor. The selection editor will continue the article to the reviewer stage and sent to the editorial board and the executive editor will follow the next selection of the Review Process stage. After that, the article of the review process will be sent to the selection editor to be received or returned to the author for revision. This process takes a month for a maximum time. In each manuscript, the editorial board and peer reviewers will be assessed from substantial and technical aspects.

All submitted manuscripts are read by editorial staff. the manuscript evaluated by the editor becomes incompatible with journal criteria rejected immediately without any external reviews. The manuscript evaluated to be a potential interest for our readers is sent to two reviewer desks. The editor then makes a decision based on reviewers' recommendations of several possibilities: rejected, revision required, or accepted.

The editor has the right to decide which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published.

Review Process:

  1. Author submits the script
  2. Editor's Evaluation (some manuscripts denied or returned before the review process)
  3. Blind peer review process
  4. Editor's Decision
  5. Confirm to an author

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan has published two times annually, March and September.

 

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...

 

Review Guidelines

General

  1. Give mark on the wrong part or part that need to be changed
  2. Give mark on the right side of the wrong line or line that need to be changed

 

Detail

  1. Title: Effectiveness, Specification, and clarity
  2. Abstract: Complete and describe the essence  of article
  3. Keywords: Describing the essential concept of article
  4. Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the important reason of the research object
  5. Research Method: Has to emphasize on procedure and data analysis for empiric study
  6. Result: Analysis accurateness
  7. Findings: Up-to-date finding, relevance to the interrelated researchers, and the scientific contribution effect of finding /idea to the development of science
  8. Conclusion: Logical, valid, brief, and clear
  9. Suggestion: For practical action, development of new theory, and next/advanced research
  10. Picture/Table: Center located, Not cutted, Good quality to viewed, Picture/table title, Referred with capital letter
  11. Bibliography: The degree of up-to-date and thereference to primary book sources. Rules: minimum 80% of the journals or the interrelated scientific researchers, above 2007 (year); thenumber of book sources are minimum10; minimum 80% in the text/material of art.

 

Full Review Process of Manuscript

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

 

Categories Decision

  • Publish   : No Need Revision
  • Minor     : Revision can be done by Editor-In-Chief or those who help
  • Major     : Revision can only be done by author
  • Rejected : Unproperly scientific or too many

 

 

Revision Guidelines

The paper that has received the results of the review is expected to be immediately revised to adjust the suggestions and questions that exist in the review results. The author is given no later than 15 days to revise his paper counted since the submission of the review results. If at that time the author does not upload the revised paper, then the paper will not be refused to be published (reject). Renewal time extensions can be obtained in accordance with strong demand and reason. The revised paper is further uploaded to Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan website and also sent via email akuntansi.pajak@unmer.ac.id Following the provisions of the revised paper in Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan:

  1. When a reviewer gives comment on paper (in the comment box), the writer asked to directly reply to that comment box. The answer from the author can be Information that has been done revision or reason/argumentation if the author is not willing to revise for some reason (please can be submitted in the comments field already available briefly and details).

  2. Revised on paper or additional material/sentence please block yellow highlighter.

  3. Attached sample of revision process paper in Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan to facilitate revision process by the author.

 

Ethics Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Hasil gambar untuk committee on publication ethics logo

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
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 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 be used in an editor's own 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 assist 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 be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 

Statistic Visitors

  • Flag Counter

Web<br /> Analytics

 

Screening for Plagiarism

In the publication, the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan strongly opposes plagiarism on its own merits. The Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan is committed to blocking plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.

Authors must ensure that they have written the original work completely, and if the author has used the work and/or the words of others that have been quoted or quoted appropriately. Papers found with such problems are automatically rejected and the author strongly advised. Also, an important part of the work has not been published. The author also respects the writing in the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan of publication, duplicate, or excessive fraud.

Before the author submits a script to the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan at least to first check the use of plagiarism. When submitting published articles for authenticity checks, the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan recommends the use of Turnitin, Scanner from http://turnitin.com/. Before using Plagiarism Turnitin for the first time, we strongly recommend that authors read the instructions for using this plagiarism detector. The detector plagiarism system for the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan uses and is affiliated with Turnitin.

* Please note that the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan affiliated with Turnitin. *

The article has not been published in other media and does not contain plagiarism. Preferably the author should use reference management software, eg for Mendeley or Zotero. The bibliography and reference system for the Jurnal Akuntansi dan Perpajakan uses Mendeley and Zotero.