Focus and Scope

Focus

Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual publishes scientific and critical thoughts in philosophy and theology with contextual philosophical and theological approches. It is an open access journal, founded and sponsored by Faculty of Theology, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Scope

Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual aims at developing contextual philosophical and theological discourses in dialogue with sociological, anthropological, comparative religion, religious studies, historical, cultural and psychological perspectives and takes the diversity of Asian societies and cultures as its context. The journal is open to undergraduate students, graduate students and scholars from all religious backgrounds.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual undergo a selection and assessment process by the Editorial Team to ensure their accordance with the writing guideline, focus, and scope, and that they are of excellent academic quality. The manuscripts will then be reviewed using the double blind peer review method in which case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Desk Review. At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guideline, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.

Peer review. When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 4 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceed to this stage.

Reviewer’s decision. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:

1. Accepted, meaning that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
2. Accepted with revisions, meaning that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns.
3. Submit for review, meaning that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised and resubmitted.
4. Submit elsewhere, meaning that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication and the author is recommeded to submit the manuscript to other journal(s). 
5. Decline, meaning that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication.
6. See comment, meaning that the Editor or reviewer provide specific considerations to the author regarding certain issues.

The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Editorial Team to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.  

Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Editorial Team to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Editorial Team, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.

Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor in Chief will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.

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.

All research articles published in Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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...

License Term

Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

You are free 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.

Under the following terms:

Publication Ethics

Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual is a peer-reviewed electronic journal. This statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Team, the peer-reviewed and the publisher (Faculty of Theology, Sanata Dharma University, Indonesia).

This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 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. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

The following is the description of each role in the journal:

Section A: Publication and authorship 

1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. Review process is blind peer review.
3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

 Retraction

The papers published in Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual will be considered to retract in the publication if :

1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
3. it constitutes plagiarism
4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

Faculty of Theology Sanata Dharma University as publisher of Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Faculty of Theology Sanata Dharma University and Editorial Team will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary. Publication decisions of The editor of the Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual 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 editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Fair play An editor at any time 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 of 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. Acknowledgement 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 behavior and are unacceptable. Data Access and Retention Authors are 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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), 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. 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. Acknowledgement 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 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.

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

Plagiarism Policy

Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual recognizes that plagiarism is not acceptable for all author and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when plagiarism is identified by Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual anti-plagiarism software detection in an article that is submitted for publication.

Every full paper submitted to Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual will first be screened for similarity or plagiarism or originality using Turnitin (an Internet-based similarity check/plagiarism-prevention service). Divinitas: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Kontekstual will not publish any papers containing similarities or (self-)plagiarism over 20 per cent (maximum 20 per cent).

 “Plagiarism is copying another person’s text or ideas and passing the copied material as your own work. You must both delineate (i.e., separate and identify) the copied text from your text and give credit to (i.e., cite the source) the source of the copied text to avoid accusations of plagiarism.  Plagiarism is considered fraud and has potentially harsh consequences including loss of job, loss of reputation, and the assignation of reduced or failing grade in a course."

This definition of plagiarism applies for copied text and ideas:

1. Regardless of the source of the copied text or idea.
2. Regardless of whether the author(s) of the text or idea which you have copied actually copied that text or idea from another source.
3. Regardless of whether or not the authorship of the text or idea which you copy is known
4. Regardless of the nature of your text (journal paper/article, web page, book chapter, paper submitted for a college course, etc) into which you copy the text or idea
5. Regardless of whether or not the author of the source of the copied material gives permission for the material to be copied; and
6. Regardless of whether you are or are not the author of the source of the copied text or idea (self-plagiarism).

When plagiarism is identified by the Plagiarism Checker software, the Editorial Team is responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the article in agreement with the following guidelines:

Minor Plagiarism

A small sentence or short paragraph of another manuscript is plagiarized without any significant data or idea taken from the other papers or publications.

Punishment: A warning is given to the authors and a request to change the manuscript and properly cite the original sources.

Intermediate Plagiarism

A significant data, paragraph, or sentence of an article is plagiarized without proper citation to the original source.

Punishment: The submitted article is automatic rejected.

Severe Plagiarism

A large portion of an article is plagiarized that involves many aspects such as reproducing original results (data, formulation, equation, law, statement, etc.), ideas, and methods presented in other publications.

Punishment: The paper is automatic rejected and the authors are forbidden to submit further articles to the journal.

Working Process

Editorial Team checking manuscript on offline and online database manually (checking proper citation and quotation).

Author Fee

E-ISSN: (Validity Starting Volume 1 No. 2, Juli 2023) 2988-2311

P-ISSN: (Validity Starting Volume 1 No. 2, Juli 2023) 2988-5434

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