About the Journal
INDONESIAN BUSINESS REVIEW
Indonesian Business Review (IBR) is a peer-reviewed journal published twice a year (January-June, and July-December) by Universitas Prasetiya Mulya. The first issue published in 2018. IBR seeks to publish high-quality, scholarly empirical research articles in business management: strategic management, organization and human resources management, finance management, operations management, entrepreneurship, and organization topics that test, extend, or build theory and contribute to business management practices in Indonesia.
Online ISSN: 2654-6213
IBR Indexed in:
- Garba Rujukan Digital (Garuda) by Ministry of Education and Culture Republic of Indonesia
Focus and Scope
IBR seeks to publish high-quality, scholarly empirical research articles in :
- business management,
- strategic management,
- operations management,
- organization & human resource management,
- finance managemet,
- organization topics that test, extend, or build theory and contribute to business management practices in Indonesia.
Peer Review Process
Criteria for Publication
IBR receives more submissions than they can publish. To be published in IBR, a manuscript should meet six general criteria:
1. Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
2. All empirical methods including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, and mixed methods are welcome.
3. Of extreme importance to practitioners in the specific field.
4. Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
5. Whilst a major focus of the journal is on the Indonesia region, and organization, business, strategic management, HR, operation, or entrepreneurship issues connected with it, other areas may also be considered.
6. Strong empirical and theoretical contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the management field. Thus, preference is given to submissions that test, extend, or build strong theoretical frameworks while empirically examining issues with high importance for management theory and practice.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.
IBR Review Process
All manuscripts will be subject to editorial review and double-blind peer reviews. Papers that do not meet the criteria for inclusion or are otherwise inappropriate will be rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field). All submitted manuscripts to IBR are screened for plagiarism using iThenticate. Manuscript exceeding 30% in a plagiarism check will be automatically rejected. Manuscripts judged to be appropriate for inclusion in IBR are sent for formal review.
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review. Typically two experts review each paper; however they may be subject to more advanced scrutiny if more specialized advice is needed in regards to statistics or techniques.
Based on the reviewers' comments, the editors will then accept or reject the papers with the following conditions:
1. Accept and publish, with or without editorial revisions.
2. Invite the authors to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns.
3. Reject the article outright, typically on grounds of lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements, or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Any changes made to the original manuscript will be clearly stated by the authors to review. The authors should carefully examine sentence structure, the completeness, and accuracy of the text, references, tables, and graphics contents of the revised manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will have the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit articles on all aspects of style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts with excessive errors in any aspect (e.g. spelling or punctuation) will be returned to authors for revision before resubmission or may be rejected entirely.
IBR welcomes recommendations from reviewers regarding edits to prospective manuscripts; however, in the event of conflicting advice from reviewers, the editors will make a final decision on the course of action. Editors will try to evaluate the strength of the arguments reported by each reviewer, relevant comments made by the authors, and any other information that may not be available to either party before reaching a decision. IBR's primary responsibilities are to our readers and the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them we must assess the validity and reliability of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on certain points. Therefore we ask the reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice when requested. The editors are very aware that reviewers may be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes; therefore the editors will try to keep consultations to the minimum that we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the editors consider this as a commitment to review subsequent revisions if necessary, and the editors will not resubmit a paper back to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
IBR takes reviewers' feedback and criticisms seriously. In particular, editors are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, editors may consult the other reviewer as to whether he/she is applying an unduly critical standard. Editors may occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, however, we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example, a specialist technical problem, on which we feel a need for further advice.
Reviewer selection is crucial in the publication process, thus the editors usually assign a reviewer based on many factors, such as the reviewer's expertise, reputation, specific recommendation, and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. Furthermore, the editors avoid selecting people who are slow in responding, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their perspectives, whether harsh or lenient. Editors will also check the availability of reviewers before sending them the manuscript to review.
IBR is committed to rapid response, editorial decisions, and publication. The editors believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service, both for authors and for the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we urge the reviewers to provide feedback promptly within the number of days agreed. If the reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we require the new specific date confirmation of feedback, so that we still can inform the authors about the delay, and where necessary, we will find other alternatives.
The editors do not release the reviewers' identities to the authors or vice versa, except the reviewers specifically require to be identified. Editors prefer the reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. We require the reviewers not to identify themselves to the authors without the editors' permission.
IBR is published twice a year, in the period January-June and July-December.
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.
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...
Authorship and Plagiarism
Authorship of articles should be limited to those who have contributed sufficiently to take public responsibility for the contents. These contributions include (a) conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, or both; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (c) final approval of the version to be published; and (d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Submission paper to IBR is interpreted by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed with all of the article's contents. The corresponding (submitting) author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached, and for managing all communication between the journal and co-authors before and after publication.
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.
Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism
All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material. Every article submitted to IBR will be checked by Turnitin software. Articles with a plagiarism result exceeding 30% will be rejected promptly. The author is able to resubmit the article after he/she revises his/her work significantly. The editors will only process the article reaching below the 30% similarity limit.
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 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 acknowledgment; or (2) Authors create multiple papers that are slight variations on each other, which are submitted for publication in different journals but without acknowledgment 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. IBR reserves the right to evaluate issues of plagiarism and redundancy on a case-by-case basis.
The corresponding author has the responsibility to ensure that:
- The article is an original work and does not involve fraud, fabrication, or plagiarism.
- The article has not been published previously and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. If accepted by IBR, the article will not be submitted for publication to any other journal.
- The article contains no defamatory or unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that infringe upon individual privacy, proprietary rights, or any statutory copyright.
- They have written permission from owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources from where they were obtained.
- All authors have made significant contributions to the study including the conception and design of the article, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript.
- All authors have reviewed the manuscript, take responsibility for its content, and prove its publication.
- All authors are aware of and agree to the terms of this publishing agreement.
- 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 (Copyright Law).
IBR follows the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all aspects of publication ethics, in particular, protocols of research and publication misconduct. IBR adheres to the COPE guidelines that ensure a high-quality standard of ethics for authors, editors, and reviewers:
- Authors attest that the material has not been previously published and that they have not transferred any rights to the article to another party.
- Authors should ensure the originality of their work and must properly cite others' work in accordance with the format of the approved references.
- Authors should not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
- 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.
- Authors should make all data and details of their work available to the editors if there are suspicions of data falsification or fabrication.
- The authors of the article should clarify any possible conflicts of interest such as their job role, research expenses, consultant expenses, and intellectual property.
- 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.
- Editors are responsible for every article published in IBR.
- Editors should assist authors, where possible, to ensure their articles adhere to IBR guidelines.
- Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making final decisions regarding publication.
- An editor must evaluate manuscripts objectively for publication; judging each on its merit without bias towards nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
- Editors should decline articles if there is a potential conflict of interest.
- Editors must ensure that documents sent to reviewers do not contain private information of the authors and vice versa.
- The editor's final decision should be relayed to authors in a timely fashion and will be accompanied by the reviewer's comments unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks.
- If authors have a well-reasoned objection to a certain individual reviewing their work, editors should respect this request.
- Editors and all staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
- Editors will be guided by the COPE guidelines if there is a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.
- Reviewers are required to comment on possible research, ethical, and publication misconduct if they are suspected.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers must complete the work in a timely manner and should notify the editor immediately if they cannot complete the work.
- Reviewers are to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript.
- Reviewers should not accept manuscripts for assessment if they believe there is a potential conflict of interest between them and any of the authors.
- A reviewer should 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.
- 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.
Conflicts of Interest
General policy and sources of funding
Authors are required to disclose all sources of institutional, private, and corporate financial support for their study. Authors are also required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. An author's conflict of interest or information specifying the absence of conflicts of interest and the sources of funding for the research will be published under a separate heading entitled "Conflict of Interest".
Submission by an editor or by author whose relationship with editor might create the perception of bias
If a submitting author and editor of IBR have a relationship that may create a perception of bias, an alternative editor from another institute will be elected to oversee the manuscript. This editor will select the reviewers and have the final decision regarding the paper. The submitting editor will not have access to any information or correspondence relating to the submission that is not meant for the authors.
Potential conflict of interest for reviewers
The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: ‘If you know or think you know, the identity of the author, or if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this paper (e.g. friendship or conflict/rivalry) please declare it immediately. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.' If a conflict of interest has been declared, standard policy declares that an alternate reviewer must be used however this is at the editors' discretion.
Editors of IBR treat all submitted manuscripts and communication with authors and reviewers as confidential. It is expected that authors will also treat communication with the journal as confidential. Correspondence with the journal, reviewers' reports, and other confidential material must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicized without prior permission from the editors, regardless of whether the submission is published or not.
Opinions expressed in articles and creative pieces published in IBR are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or the publisher.
IBR is an open-access journal; it does not charge readers or institutes for access. There are no charges for submission of a manuscript, article processing, publication of manuscripts, or color reproduction of photographs.
The journal and respective authors hold exclusive copyrights of all materials published in IBR. Any reproduction of material from the journal, without proper acknowledgment or prior permission, will result in an infringement of intellectual property laws. Written acceptance of the Journal Publishing Agreement (JPA) is required before the article can be published.
Any authors who may have grievances about any aspect of their interaction with IBR should e-mail the Editor-in-Chief at email@example.com. Every effort will be made to acknowledge the complaint within 7 days of receiving it. If required, the Editor-in-Chief will consult with other editors regarding the complaint. The Editor-in-Chief will liaise directly with the complainant and thoroughly explain the steps they have taken to resolve the matter.