Publication Ethics

Theologia in Loco is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by the Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Teologi (STFT) Jakarta. In carrying out its publication responsibilities, this journal upholds rigorous ethical standards and takes an active stance against publication malpractice in all its forms. The guidelines outlined in this document govern the conduct of all stakeholders involved in the publication process — including authors, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, peer reviewers, and STFT Jakarta in its role as publisher. These guidelines are informed by and consistent with the standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Complaints and Appeals

Theologia in Loco welcomes complaints and appeals submitted in good faith, and is committed to addressing them through fair and transparent procedures established by the editorial board. Each complaint will be carefully reviewed in light of the specific circumstances and parties involved. Matters that may be subject to complaint include, but are not limited to: the handling of editorial processes, suspected manipulation of citations, perceived bias on the part of editors or reviewers, irregularities in the peer-review process, and related concerns. All cases are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Complaints and appeals may be directed to the editorial team via email at: theologiainloco@stftjakarta.ac.id.

 

Article Withdrawal

A submitted manuscript may be withdrawn under certain circumstances, such as when it is found to contain material errors, or when it has been simultaneously submitted to another journal or publisher without prior disclosure. Withdrawal may also be necessitated by violations of academic integrity, including but not limited to: concurrent submission to multiple journals, misrepresentation of authorship, plagiarism or self-plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, and comparable forms of misconduct.

Authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript on any of the above grounds are required to submit a formal written request to the editorial board of Theologia in Loco. In cases where a published article is subsequently found to have violated publication ethics, the editorial board reserves the right to issue a retraction in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines.

The Responsibilities of Chief Editor

1. Impartial Evaluation: The Chief Editor evaluates manuscripts solely based on their intellectual merit, ensuring a fair and unbiased assessment process.
2. Confidentiality: The Chief Editor of Theologia in Loco upholds the highest standards of confidentiality regarding manuscripts, restricting access to information only to individuals directly involved in the publishing process.
3. Publication Decisions: The Chief Editor of Theologia in Loco is entrusted with the responsibility of making final decisions on which articles will be published and when they will be scheduled.
4. Enhancing Journal Impact: The Chief Editor of Theologia in Loco actively seeks and incorporates feedback from board members, reviewers, and authors to continuously improve and elevate the journal’s image and visibility.
5. Guidance for Contributors: The Chief Editor of Theologia in Loco provides clear and detailed instructions to potential contributors about the submission process and the specific expectations for authors.
6. Reviewer Selection: The Chief Editor of Theologia in Loco ensures that appropriate and qualified reviewers are identified and selected to maintain the integrity and quality of the review process.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

1. Impartiality: Every manuscript submitted to the journal is evaluated strictly on its scholarly merit. Editors do not allow considerations of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious conviction, ethnic background, nationality, or political orientation to influence their assessment of any manuscript.
2. Confidentiality: Information pertaining to a submitted manuscript must be kept strictly confidential. Editors may share such information only with the corresponding author, assigned or prospective reviewers, other relevant editorial advisers, and the publisher, and only to the extent necessary for the editorial process.
3. Editorial Decision: The editor holds the authority to accept, reject, or request revisions to a submitted manuscript, drawing on the recommendations of peer reviewers and in accordance with the journal’s editorial standards. Decisions may also be informed by applicable legal considerations, including those relating to defamation, intellectual property, and plagiarism. Where necessary, editors may consult with other members of the editorial team. The editorial team collectively takes responsibility for all content published in the journal.
4. Peer Review: Editors are responsible for conducting an initial screening of submitted manuscripts to verify their compliance with the journal’s scope and formatting requirements. They oversee the peer-review process to ensure that it is conducted rigorously, equitably, and in confidence. Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest. The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process.
5. Transparency and Conflicts of Interest: All editorial decisions must be reached independently and must not be influenced by any personal, financial, or professional interest of the editor, author, or any other party involved in the process.

 

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

1. Integrity of Research: Authors are expected to present their research with precision and intellectual honesty. The manuscript must faithfully reflect the work carried out, with sufficient methodological detail and appropriate references to enable independent verification or replication. Any form of data fabrication, falsification, or deliberate misrepresentation is a serious breach of academic ethics and will not be tolerated.
2. Prohibition of Duplicate Submission: Submitting a manuscript that has previously been published, or that is currently under review at another journal, is considered a violation of publication ethics. Authors must confirm that their manuscript is being submitted exclusively to Theologia in Loco and that it has not been published elsewhere in substantially the same form.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors bear full responsibility for ensuring the originality of their submitted work. Any use of previously published material — whether from other sources or from the authors’ own prior publications — must be clearly acknowledged through proper citation. Unacknowledged reproduction of another’s ideas, text, or data, as well as self-plagiarism in any form, constitutes a serious breach of scholarly integrity.
4. Citation of Sources: Authors must ensure that all intellectual sources drawn upon in the preparation of a manuscript are properly cited. Appropriate acknowledgment of prior scholarship is a fundamental obligation in academic writing and reflects the integrity of the research process.
5. Authorship and Contributor Roles: Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made a genuine and substantive contribution to the design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research. All such contributors must be listed as co-authors. Individuals whose involvement was more limited but nonetheless meaningful should be recognized in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the author list is complete and accurate, and that all listed co-authors have read, approved, and consented to the submission of the final manuscript.
6. Declaration of Conflict of Interests: Authors must disclose any financial arrangements, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the conduct or reporting of the research. All sources of funding that supported the research must also be clearly identified within the manuscript.
7. Correction of Published Errors: Should an author identify a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obliged to contact the editorial team without delay and to cooperate fully in the process of issuing a correction or, where necessary, a retraction.

 

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Support for Editorial Processes: Peer reviewers play a vital role in supporting the quality and integrity of the journal by providing expert, independent assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations assist the editorial board in making well-informed publication decisions and contribute directly to the improvement of the scholarly work under review.
2. Confidentiality: Reviewers are entrusted with confidential material and must treat all manuscripts assigned to them with appropriate discretion. The contents of a manuscript under review must not be shared with, discussed with, or disclosed to any third party. Reviewers may not contact the author directly or seek identifying information without the explicit consent of the editor.
3. Objectivity and Professionalism: Peer review must be carried out with intellectual rigor and professional integrity. Reviewers are expected to provide substantive, evidence-based assessments and to avoid any form of personal criticism directed at the author. All evaluative judgments must be clearly reasoned and supported by specific reference to the manuscript’s content.
4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should assess whether the sources cited by the author are appropriate, accurate, and sufficient. If a reviewer identifies potential issues — such as the use of unsupported data, suspected plagiarism, possible duplicate publication, or other apparent violations of publication ethics — they are expected to bring these concerns to the editor’s attention with appropriate documentation.
5. Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts in which they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest, whether arising from prior collaborative relationships, institutional affiliations, academic rivalries, or personal connections to the authors or the subject matter. Any confidential or privileged information encountered during the review process must not be used for personal or professional gain.
6. Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe communicated by the editor. Should unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers must notify the editor at the earliest opportunity to allow for the assignment of a replacement reviewer.
7. Scope of Expertise: Reviewers who determine that the manuscript assigned to them falls outside their area of expertise are encouraged to decline the assignment and inform the editor promptly, so that a more suitable reviewer may be identified.