Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of Science Learning aims to serves original articles on the latest issues and trends in high quality research and theoretical position papers concerning preservice and in-service education of science teachers. The article offers ways to improve classroom science teaching and learning, and professional development

The scope of Journal of Science Learning are:

  1. Science Learning : consisting of theoretical and empirical research studies on learning of science.
  2. Science Learning in Everyday Life : consisting of analytical, interpretative, or philosophical papers regarding learning science outside of the formal classroom.
  3. Science Teacher Education : consisting of original empirical and/or theoretical research that examines the preparation of teachers, the work of teachers, or how teachers' work is influenced by a broader context.
  4. Science Studies and Science Education : provides a forum for interdisciplinary investigations into science and science education.
  5. Learning Media in Science Learning
  6. Curriculum in Science Learning

 

Section Policies

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2017

Editors
  • Diana Rochintaniawati
  • Ari Widodo
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Volume 1, Issue 2, 2018

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Volume 1, Issue 3, 2018

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Volume 2, Issue 1, 2018

Editors
  • Diana Rochintaniawati
  • Ari Widodo
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Newly submitted manuscripts will first be screened by the main Editors. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are of insufficient quality, outside the scope of the journal or they are considered not original. Manuscripts that do meet the minimal requirements for publication are assigned to one of the main Editors, who sends the manuscript out for review. Reviewers are selected by the main Editors on the basis of their expertise, their availability, and such as to avoid possible conflicts of interest. A reviewer is asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound, original, relevant, clear, whether it correctly references previous work, and whether it falls within the scope of the journal.
All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. The acceptance or rejection of articles will be decided by the editorial boards based on the review results supplied by the reviewers. There are no communications between authors and editors concerning the rejection decision. Authors whose papers are rejected will be informed with the reasons of the rejection.
All papers are fully peer-reviewed. We only publish articles that have been reviewed and approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate for the article. We used double blind peer-reviewing process. To ensure the integrity of the blind peer-review for submission to this journal, every effort should be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken with regard to the text and the file properties:

  1. The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with "Author" and year used in the references and footnotes, instead of the authors' name, article title, etc.
  2. With Microsoft Office documents, author identification should also be removed from the properties for the file.
  3. For Microsoft 2003 and previous versions, and Macintosh versions of Word:
  4. Under the File menu select: Save As > Tools (or Options with a Mac) > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.
  5. For MacIntosh Word 2008 (and future versions)
      • Under the File menu select "Properties."
      • Under the Summary tab remove all of the identifying information from all of the fields.
      • Save the File.
  6. For Microsoft 2007 (Windows):
      • Click on the office button in the upper-left hand corner of the office application
      • Select "Prepare" from the menu options.
      • Select "Properties" for the "Prepare" menu options.
      • Delete all of the information in the document property fields that appear under the main menu options.
      • Save the document and close the document property field section.
  7. For Microsoft 2010 (Windows):
    • Under the File menu select "Prepare for sharing."
    • Click on the "Check for issues" icon.
    • click on "inspect document" icon.
    • Uncheck all of the checkboxes except "Document Properties and Personal information".
    • Run the document inspector, which will then do a search of the document properties and indicated if any document property fields contain any information.
    • If the document inspector finds that some of the document properties contain information it will notify you and give you the option to "Remove all," which you will click to remove the document properties and personal information from the document.
  8. For PDF files:
    • With PDFs, the authors' names should also be removed from Document Properties found under File on Adobe Acrobat's main menu.

Detailed information about the flow for the manuscript submission (author) to the acceptance by editor is shown in the following figure.

In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author) (route 1)
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors) (route 2). Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review.
  3. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers) (route 3-4)
  4. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments) (route 5)
  5. Paper Revision (by author)
  6. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with similar flow to point number 1. (route 1)
  7. If reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). (route 6)
  8. Galley proof and publishing process  (route 7 and 8)

The steps point number 1 to 5 is considered as 1 round of peer-reviewing process (see yellow area in the figure). And, our reviewing process at least goes through 2 round of reviewing process.
The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form
  2. accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections
  3. accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance ): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
  4. revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes
  5. reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

 

Publication Frequency

The Journal of Science Learning was published three times a year in March, July, and 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.

User have right to:

  •     Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  •     Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.


This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms under the following terms:

  • Attribution — Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

JSL by http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/jslearning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

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...

 

Author(s)’ Publication Ethics

To submit the article, author (s) must submit an ethic statement. The ethic statement can be downloaded in here. In short, Author(s)’ Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement including the following statement:

Journal of Science Learning (JSL)

Author(s)’ Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 The undersigned

1) Name:              __________________________________________________

Affiliation:           __________________________________________________

2) Name:              __________________________________________________

Affiliation:           __________________________________________________

3) Name:              __________________________________________________

Affiliation:           __________________________________________________

4) Name:              __________________________________________________

Affiliation:           __________________________________________________

hereby declare that I/we:

1) accept and comply with Journal of Science Learning (JSL)’s publication ethics and publication malpractice statement.

2) the manuscript entitled:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I/we sent to JSL is my/our original work which is free from plagiarism and has not been published before either in printed or online and is not being sent to/reviewed by other publishers.

 

3) agree with the final version of the manuscript sent by JSL’s editors as the final proof.

Signed: ________________________________________ Date ______________

Signed: ________________________________________ Date ______________

Signed: ________________________________________ Date ______________

Signed: ________________________________________ Date ______________

 

Plagiarism Screening

Before going to review process, all manuscripts will be checked that they are free from plagiarism practice using "Plagiarism Checker X" software. If there an indication of plagiarism, the manuscript will instantly be rejected.

 

Transfer of Copyright Agreement

In case of article being accepted, to publish the article, author (s) must submit an Transfer of Copyright Agreement. The letter can be downloaded in here.

Must be signed and returned to the editor-in-chief of the  journal before the manuscript can be considered for publication

 

The transfer of copyright from author to publisher must be clearly stated in writing to enable the publisher to assure maximum dissemination of the author’s work. Therefore, the following agreement, executed and signed by the author, is required with each manuscript submission.

 

1.      Parties of the Agreement

 

Author (s):                                                                                                                                            

 

The article entitled                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                           

(Herewith referred to as the "Materials"),

is herewith submitted for publication in  “Journal of Science Learning” (JSL)

 

2. Subject of the Agreement

A) Copyright

1.      The Author and each co-authors transfer the copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution and ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

2.      Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

3.      Authors should sign copyright transfer agreement when they have approved the final proofs sent by JSL prior the publication.

 

B) Author Guarantee

1.      The Author (Co-authors) guarantees that the Materials are an original work, submitted only to JSL, and have not been published previously.

2.      In case the Materials were written jointly with Co-authors, the Author guarantees that he/she has informed them of the terms of this Agreement and obtained their signatures or written permission to singe on their behalf.

3.      The Author guarantees as well that:

a.      The Materials do not contain libelous statements.

b.      The Materials do not infringe on other persons' rights (including without limitation copyrights, patent rights and the trademark right).

c.      The Materials do not contain facts or instructions that can cause damage or injury to third parties and their publication dose not cause the disclosure of any secret or confidential information

                                                                                                                                           

Author (Corresponding Author):

Correspondence Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Corresponding Author: Surname; First name                              Signature                                       Date

                                                                                                                                           

On Behalf of the Publisher:

Department of Science Education,

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,

Bandung 40154, Indonesia

Telp/Fax: +62-22-2001108

Email: jslearning@upi.edu

Website: http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/jslearning/

 

Accepted for publication þ                                                       Signature                                       Date

                                                                                                                                           

PLEASE NOTE: 

The accepted manuscript cannot be processed for publication until the publisher has received this signed form. If the manuscript is not published in the Journal, this release will not take effect.

The sole responsibility for the whole content (s) of the article remains only with the corresponding author. However, Editor would reserve the right to adjust the style to certain standards of uniformity before publication.

1.      The Author and each co-authors transfer the copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution and ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

Publication Ethics

Journal of Science Learning partially adopted the publication ethics based on Elsevier Publication Ethics Guidelines (Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

In keeping with potential editorial conflicts of interest, manuscripts (co-)authored by one of the main Editors will be handled fully by the other main Editor in an undisclosed review process. Similar disclosure arrangements are made in the case of Associate Editors (co-)authoring a manuscript.

 

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method.

 

Ethics of Editors

Publication Decisions

The editor of a journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions.  The editor may be constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making these decisions.

 

Peer review

The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.  Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.

The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

 

Fair play.

The 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.

The editorial policies of the journal should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them.  The editor shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system. The editor shall establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions.

 

Declaration of Competing Interests.

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the editor, and then updated if and when new conflicts arise. The publisher may publish such declarations in the journal.

The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published.

 

Ethics 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.  Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.  In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.

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 decline to participate in the review process.

 

Confidentiality.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.

Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.

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.

 

Alertness to Ethical Issues.

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

 

Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.

Reviews should be conducted objectively.  Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

 

Ethics 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.

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 research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal.  Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication. Authors may refer to their journal’s Guide for Authors for further details.

 

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources.

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 and permission has been obtained where necessary.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. 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.

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 behaviour 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 of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint.

Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical 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.

 

Confidentiality.

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 substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.

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.

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement.

Authors take collective responsibility for the work.  Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

 

Declaration of Competing Interests.

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.

All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated.

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 possible stage.

 

Image Integrity.

It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly.

Authors should comply with any specific policy for graphical images applied by the relevant journal, e.g. providing the original images as supplementary material with the article, or depositing these in a suitable repository.

 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

 

Fees

JSL does not charge any submission or processing fees for every article received and published.

 

Reviewers Guidelines

Journal of Science Learning uses the reviewer guidelines based on best practice of Elsevier Publisher

 

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

 

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

 

Before you start

If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.

 

First read the article and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.

 

Your review report

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

 

Checklist

  • Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and understood the research.
  • Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
  • Any suggestion that the author includes citations to your (or your associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing your citation count or enhancing the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).
  • According to COPE guidelines treat any manuscripts you are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, you must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.
  • Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?
  • If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
  • Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references.

 

Your recommendation

When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

  • Reject (explain reason in report)
  • Accept without revision
  • Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article)