Focus and Scope

Sustainability for Social and Law; Green and Blue Constitutions Social Equalities and Green Governance

Human Security and Local, National, and Global Political Dynamics; Human Security and Social-cultural Development; Human Security and Defense and Security System; Human Security in the Perspective of Religions

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every article submitted to the editor will be received first by the staff editor and then selected by 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 send it 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 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 the editorial team. 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. The author submits the script
2. Editor's Evaluation (some manuscripts were denied or returned before the review process)
3. The double-blind peer review process
4. Editor's Decision
5. Confirm to an author

Publication Frequency

Proceedings Published 1 time in 1 year (November)

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

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

We follow the Core Practices of COPE including the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Editors

Duties for Editors

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.

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 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 behaviour 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

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.

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 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

Screening for Plagiarism

In the publication, the Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science strongly opposes plagiarism on its own merits. The Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science 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 Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science of publication, duplicate, or excessive fraud.

Before the author submits a script to the Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science at least first check the use of plagiarism. When submitting published articles for authenticity checks, the Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science 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 Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science uses and is affiliated with Turnitin.

Please note that the Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science is 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, e.g Mendeley. The bibliography and reference system for the Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science uses Mendeley and Turnitin.

Abstracting & Indexing

Proceedings of International Conference in Social Science have been abstracting and indexing:

• Google Scholar
• Dimensions
• Garba Rujukan Digital (GARUDA)
• Science and Technology Index (SINTA)
• Index Copernicus International (ICI)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Revisions 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 the journal website and also sent via email at [email protected].

Following the provisions of the revised paper in the Journal:

1. When a reviewer gives a comment on a paper (in the comment box), the writer is 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 the revision process paper in the journal to facilitate the revision process by the author.

Review Guidelines

General

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

Detail

1. Title: Effectiveness, Specification, and clarity
2. Abstract: Complete and describe the essence  of an article
3. Keywords: Describing the essential concept of an article
4. Introduction: Up-to-date, originality, the relevance of the Topic, compatibility of the important reason for the research object
5. Research Method: Has to emphasize procedure and data analysis for an empirical study
6. Result: Analysis accurateness
7. Findings: Up-to-date findings, 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, Picture/Table: Center located, Not cut, Good quality to viewed, Picture/table title, Referred with a capital letter
10. Bibliography: References at least 80% from reputable scientific journals. References must be up to date for the last 10 years. Minimum number of 15 references

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, and 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 the 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 the author
• Rejected: Unproperly scientific or too many

Statistic Visitors