Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of IMED presents new ideas, developments, and innovations in mathematics education. It involves attempts to enhance teaching and learning mathematics in the classroom at all levels. It deals with educational articles from research, recent issues, and literature reviews. All paper related to mathematics education are welcome.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees by double-blind peer review for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully between 1 - 2 months. Please notice that may be paper submissions to IMED the duration of the review process can be up to 3 months.

Reviewers examine the text of the aspects of quality and substance of the writing (not grammar texts), which includes the freshness, originality, usefulness and validity of citations and bibliography.

Reviewers received the manuscript double-blind review (anonymous author) of section editor or editorial secretariat. If it is not according to their competencies, the reviewer is entitled to refuse the manuscript and recommend it to others more competent reviewer.

One person minimum reviewer reviewing the articles and one article at least reviewed by a single reviewer.

After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decisions based on reviewers’ recommendations:

  1. Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
  2. Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
  3. Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

 

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 in mathematics education.

 

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...

 

Copyright Notice

The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to IMED publisher of the journal.


Copyright encompasses exclusive rights to reproduce and deliver the article in all form and media, including reprints, photographs, microfilms and any other similar reproductions, as well as translations. The reproduction of any part of this journal, its storage in databases and its transmission by any form or media, such as electronic, electrostatic and mechanical copies, photocopies, recordings, magnetic media, etc., will be allowed only with a written permission from IMED Journal.

IMED Journal, the Editors make every effort to ensure that no wrong or misleading data, opinions or statements be published in the journal.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Plagiarism

The editor will run plagiarism check for the submitted articles before sending to the reviewers. We do not process any plagiarised contents. If a manuscript has over 20% of plagiarism based on the result of check, we will send back the manuscript to the author to be revised for the plagiarised contents

 

Article Submission and Processing Charges

We do not charge authors any fee for submitting, processing but there are Fee for publishing (IDR 150.000,-) and withdrawn the accepted paper (IDR 50.000,-). Readers can read and download any full-text articles for free of charge.

 

Publication Ethics

Ethical guidelines for journal publication(based on Elsevier policies)

 

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

 

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". Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

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 ( so its mean that manuscript at least have author and co-author). 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. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

 

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed 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 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 should evaluate 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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

 

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

 

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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

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

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