PUBLICATION CODE OF ETHICS
For Authors, Reviewers and Editors

Al-Hikmah – Journal of Islamic Da’wah (hereafter referred to as The Journal) aims to select and publish, through a double-blind peer-review process, the highest quality research articles in the field of Islamic communication, daʿwah studies, leadership, and related Islamic disciplines, from Malaysia and the broader Muslim world. The Editorial Board is committed to ensuring that the peer-review and publication process is rigorous, transparent, objective, and fair. This publication code of ethics is guided by the principles and best practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE provides internationally recognized standards of ethical conduct and practical solutions to issues encountered by Authors, Reviewers, and Editors in the publishing process. The purpose of this publication code of ethics is to safeguard the academic integrity of The Journal and to ensure that all published works meet the highest scientific and ethical standards. Authors, Editors, and Reviewers are expected to abide by these guidelines when carrying out their responsibilities. Any ethical concerns or questions regarding The Journal may be directed to the Editor-in-Chief. This code of ethics applies to all manuscript submissions to The Journal. The Editorial Board reserves the right to revise this document periodically in accordance with developments in publication ethics and academic standards.

A: Code of Ethics for Authors

1.1 Authors’ Responsibility

Authors are required to submit original work conducted honestly and in accordance with established scientific and ethical standards. Submissions must not replicate work that has been previously published elsewhere. Research results must be obtained ethically—free from fabrication, falsification, or any form of scientific misconduct. In their manuscript, authors must present a concise and accurate account of how the research was conducted, with sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study. Data must be reported truthfully and precisely, without manipulation or omission of problematic findings to create a false or misleading narrative. Authors must refrain from claiming originality where similar work has already been reported by others. Any information obtained through private communication or unpublished data must not be used without explicit permission from the individual or source. Authors are also obliged to promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher of any significant errors or inaccuracies discovered in their published work, so that appropriate corrections or retractions can be made. All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study and must agree to be held accountable for all aspects of the work, including its integrity and accuracy.

 1.2 Originality

Authors who submit a manuscript to The Journal, must ascertain that the manuscript is their original work and has not been submitted elsewhere simultaneously.  The Authors should also declare that the work and its variation have not been published elsewhere prior to submission to The Journal.  Materials from other sources or publications must be appropriately cited or quoted whenever it is used in the submitted manuscript. If the manuscript contains materials that overlap with work that was previously published, or is in-press, or that is under consideration for publication elsewhere, the Authors must cite this work in the manuscript. The Authors must also inform The Journal Editor-in-Chief of the related work, the Editor-in-Chief may request a copy of the related work.

A manuscript that is under review by any other journal must be withdrawn from the other journal, prior to submission to The Journal. Authors must explicitly cite their own earlier work and ideas, even when the work or ideas are not quoted exactly in the manuscript. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Authors are included in the manuscript, the material should be reworded and appropriately cited. Authors are not allowed to resubmit a manuscript to The Journal that was previously reviewed and rejected by The Journal unless encouraged by the Editor-in-Chief to resubmit in the rejection letter. If an earlier version was previously rejected by The Journal, and the Authors wish to submit a revised version for review, this fact and the justification for resubmission should be clearly communicated by the Authors to The Journal’s Editor-in-Chief at the time of submission.

To speed up the peer review process, Authors is strongly suggest to submit the manuscripts for publication in The Journal to check their manuscripts for possible plagiarism using any anti-plagiarism software before submitting it to The Journal.

1.3 Plagiarism

Authors who submit a manuscript to The Journal must ensure that the work is original and has not been submitted elsewhere simultaneously. Authors must also declare that the manuscript and any of its substantial variations have not been previously published, in full or in part, in any other journal or publication. If the manuscript contains any material from previously published or in-press work, or work currently under consideration elsewhere, it must be clearly cited within the manuscript. In such cases, authors are required to inform the Editor-in-Chief and may be asked to provide a copy of the related work for editorial review. A manuscript that is under review by another journal must be formally withdrawn from that journal prior to submission to The Journal. Dual submissions are strictly prohibited.

Authors must also cite their own previously published work appropriately, even if the material is not quoted verbatim. If exact sentences or paragraphs from prior publications by the same authors are reused, they must be properly reworded and cited to avoid self-plagiarism. Manuscripts that have been previously reviewed and rejected by The Journal may not be resubmitted unless specifically invited to do so by the Editor-in-Chief. In such cases, authors must clearly state in their cover letter that the manuscript is a revised version of a previously rejected submission and provides a justification for resubmission. Authors are strongly encouraged to screen their manuscripts using plagiarism detection software before submitting to The Journal, to ensure compliance with ethical publishing standards.

Manuscripts must be entirely original and free from all forms of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. The manuscript must not contain any content that is falsified, fabricated, or intentionally misleading. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the work submitted is original, and that any material or wording taken from other sources has been properly cited and acknowledged. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• Presenting another person’s work as one’s own;
• Using or paraphrasing substantial parts of another person’s work without proper citation;
• Claiming research findings or results of others as the author’s own;
• Reproducing published or unpublished ideas, phrases, or data from sources such as abstracts, books, journal articles, proceedings, theses, or grant applications without appropriate acknowledgement.

Self-plagiarism (redundancy) occurs when an author reuses significant portions of their own previously published work—whether identical or nearly identical—without proper citation or acknowledgement. This includes submitting similar manuscripts with minor modifications to different journals without disclosure. Although self-plagiarism is not considered as serious as plagiarism of others’ work, it remains unethical. Authors are encouraged to cite their own prior publications clearly to avoid overlap and misrepresentation. To ensure academic integrity:

• Authors must submit only original work that has not been published or is not under consideration elsewhere.
• The editorial office may use anti-plagiarism software to check for similarity with existing literature.
• Fraudulent claims or knowingly inaccurate statements are strictly prohibited.

To avoid plagiarism, authors are advised to:

1. Keep thorough records of all referenced sources;
2. Use quotation marks for any verbatim text and cite the original source;
3. Paraphrase accurately using their own words, accompanied by appropriate citation;
4. Cite all relevant sources when drafting the manuscript;
5. Give proper acknowledgement to the contributions of others;
6. Acknowledge any prior publications that have influenced the current work.

Plagiarism is considered a serious breach of publishing ethics and may result in the rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, or other disciplinary action.

1.4 Parallel or Multiple Submissions

Authors must not submit any manuscript that is under review or consideration by The Journal to another journal simultaneously. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time constitutes a serious breach of publishing ethics and will not be tolerated. Authors may only submit their work to another journal after receiving a formal rejection from The Journal, or upon receiving official approval of a withdrawal request submitted to the journal.

Authors are also prohibited from submitting substantially similar manuscripts or duplicate results, whether in whole or in part, to more than one publication at any point during the review process. This applies regardless of the language or publication format. Resubmission of a manuscript that has been previously rejected or withdrawn from another journal is acceptable, provided that the manuscript is not under active review elsewhere. Authors must also ensure that any prior submission or publication of the manuscript, whether partial or full, is properly disclosed during the submission process. The manuscript submitted to The Journal must not have been previously published, accepted for publication, or be under consideration elsewhere, either in whole or in part, in any language or format.

1.5 Publication from Conference Proceedings

Manuscripts submitted to The Journal must not have been published in full in any conference proceedings, as novelty is a core criterion for acceptance. However, manuscripts that have been presented partially in conferences or workshops may be considered, provided that:

• Only a limited portion of the work was previously disclosed (e.g. abstract or short paper), and
• The submitted manuscript adds significant new content—such as extended background, comprehensive experimental results, deeper analysis, or improved discussion (minimum of ~40 % new substantive material)

Authors must:

• Disclose and cite the related proceedings clearly in the manuscript.
• Explain in the cover letter or manuscript the specific additions or enhancements over the conference version.
• Ensure that the prior work does not exceed 50–60 % of total content, in line with standard practice  

Failure to meet these criteria may result in rejection on grounds of redundancy or lack of originality.

1.6 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must avoid any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity of their research or its publication. Conflicts of interest can influence the judgment and objectivity of authors, reviewers, and editors, and may not always be immediately apparent. Such conflicts may be personal, academic, political, commercial, or financial in nature.

A clear conflict of interest statement must be included in the manuscript if there is any financial or non-financial relationship that could be reasonably construed to influence the results, interpretation, or presentation of the research. All sources of financial or material support for the research project, including grants, sponsorships, or institutional affiliations, must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript. Authors who are unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest are encouraged to consult the Editor-in-Chief prior to submission. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article in accordance with publication ethics guidelines. 

1.7 Suggestion for Reviewers – Conflict of Interest

Authors submitting manuscripts to The Journal may recommend up to three potential peer reviewers. These suggested reviews:

• Must not come from the same institution as any of the authors,
• Should be expert and independent in the field,
• May be invited at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, who holds the final decision on reviewer selection.  

Authors are expected to avoid all forms of actual or perceived conflict of interest, particularly when recommending reviewers. For instance:

• They must not recommend close colleagues, recent collaborators, or anyone with a personal or professional connection.  

Reviewers must:

• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review. This includes personal, academic, commercial, or financial relationships with the authors or their institutions.  
• Decline review requests if they feel they lack necessary expertise or if a conflict exists.

1.8 Authorship Conduct

1.8.1 Authorship

Authors listed in the manuscript must have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research, and must have participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript with intellectual input. All co‑authors must agree on the order of names and approve the final submitted version. Only one individual should be designated as the Corresponding Author, who is responsible for acting as the single point of contact with the journal, managing all submission-related communication, and ensuring that all co-authors meet the authorship criteria and ethical requirements. Contributors who provided support such as funding, technical assistance, or supervision, but did not meet these authorship criteria, should be formally acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section rather than listed as co‑authors.

1.8.2 Change of Authorship

Once The Journal accepts a manuscript for publication, amendments in the authorship in the form of addition, deletion or rearranging the order of the names are no longer allowed. However, changes in the authorship (addition, deletion or rearrangement) can be made during the review process before a manuscript is accepted. 

1.8.3  Affiliation

The affiliation for each Author should be the institution where the majority of the work was performed. If an Author has subsequently transferred to another institution, the new address may also be included in the manuscript. 

1.8.4 Co-Authorship

All Co-Authors should have made significant contributions to the work being written and share accountability for the manuscript.  All Authors should agree with the final version of the manuscript before submission to The Journal. 

1.9 Permission and Copyright

Authors should check their manuscripts for the need to obtain permission under copyright law. This includes quotations, figures, photographs, artwork, or tables from other publications or internet sources. Authors must obtain all necessary permissions—typically from the publisher and/or original authors—prior to submission. If using their own previously published material, permission only needs to be secured from the original publisher. The responsibility for obtaining permission rests with the authors, not The Journal. 

1.9.2 Copyright of Published Articles

Upon formal acceptance and completion of the copyright transfer agreement, UKM Press, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia holds the copyright to the published article. All articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY‑NC 4.0).

1.10 Human, Animal Subjects and Bioethics

Manuscripts involving unusual hazards—including chemicals, procedures, or equipment—must clearly identify these risks in the Methods section. For research involving live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, formal approval from the relevant institutional ethics committee is required. The manuscript must include a statement confirming that experiments were conducted in accordance with the committee’s guidelines and relevant national or institutional regulations. The Methods section must detail the name of the ethics committee that approved the study, along with the project approval reference number or date. Authors should also explain the choice of species and experimental models and justify how these align with the scientific objectives and, where appropriate, potential relevance to human biology.

Authors must adhere to well-established animal welfare principles such as the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and reporting standards such as the ARRIVE guidelines to ensure ethical and transparent conduct in animal research. For studies involving human subjects, authors must obtain informed consent from each participant (or legal guardian) and include a statement confirming this in the manuscript. Additionally, the manuscript must identify and reference the approving ethics committee and provide the approval reference number. Research on human subjects should also comply with ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki

1.11 Manuscript Withdrawal

Authors may request withdrawal of their manuscript by writing to the Editor‑in‑Chief. Withdrawal is permitted within 14 days of initial submission, provided a valid reason is stated in writing. If the manuscript has entered the peer‑review process, withdrawal requests are subject to editorial approval. If an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a work that has already been published, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor‑in‑Chief or publisher to initiate correction or retraction, in accordance with accepted ethical standards.

1.12 Timeliness

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given to complete the revision, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief to request for an extension. 

B: Code of Ethics for Reviewers

2.1 Reciprocity

Reviewing manuscripts for academic journals is a professional service that benefits the entire scholarly community and should be encouraged. Authors who submit manuscripts to the Journal are ordinarily expected to reciprocate by accepting reasonable invitations to review submissions for the journal when invited. This practice upholds the integrity of the peer-review system and ensures that all contributors share responsibility in maintaining the quality of published research. 

2.2 Double-Blind Peer-Review

The Journal employs a double‑blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review. Only the Editor‑in‑Chief and editorial staff have access to their identities. This system promotes impartial assessment and minimizes bias based on author identity, institutional affiliation, geography, or reputation. Peer review is essential for maintaining scientific integrity and improving manuscript quality. Reviewers are selected by the Editor‑in‑Chief based on their expertise, objectivity, and publication history. They must declare any potential conflict of interest before agreeing to review and recuse themselves if a significant conflict exists.

Confidentiality is paramount: reviewers must not disclose the content of the manuscript or reveal their identities. If a reviewer suspects the identity of the author(s), they must immediately notify the journal to avoid compromising the process.

Reviewers are expected to possess formal qualifications, subject‑matter expertise, and training in peer review. They should assess manuscripts objectively, constructively, and in a timely manner, providing feedback that helps improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the research. If conflicts of interest arise or if the reviewer lacks sufficient expertise—even after beginning the review—they must inform the Editor promptly and withdraw from the assignment. Any assistance they received in preparing the review (e.g., from mentees) should be declared and formally acknowledged in the review records.

2.3 Quality of Review

Manuscripts received by The Journal will be evaluated by the Editorial board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of The Journal.  Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the guidelines for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review.  Typically, one or two reviewers are employed.  The manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to The Journal’s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in-Chief but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following input from the reviewers:

• identify and comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and characterization methods.
• comment accurately and constructively on the quality of the Author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of substandard scientific conduct.
• provide the Authors with useful suggestions to improve the manuscript.
• comments should be constructive and professional. Personal comments regarding the Authors is not permitted. 
• comment on the work and not the Authors.
• provide the Editor-in-Chief with the proper context and perspective to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript.

 The Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the reviewers' recommendation, as follows:

• Accept without revisions;
• Accept with minor revisions to be made by the Authors;
• Return to the Authors for major modifications, Authors to revise & resubmit for another round of reviews depending on the request of the reviewers;
• Reject, with encouragement for resubmission; reasons for rejection must be given by the Editor-in-Chief
• Reject Outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, or if the work constitutes any unethical publishing behavior.  The Editor-in-Chief must give the reasons for rejection.

Reviewers can recommend for particular course of action.  However, the Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the Editor-in-Chief with the information on which a decision should be based.

All reviewers are informed of the journal's expectations, and Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of review.  The Editor-in-Chief will access the quality of review routinely by ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics periodically.

 2.4 Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewers should assess each manuscript against criteria such as scope, accuracy, originality, quality, relevance, and contribution to the field. If a reviewer believes the submission falls outside their area of expertise or cannot meet the review deadline, they must notify the Editor‑in‑Chief promptly and return or decline the manuscript. All materials received for review are considered privileged information. Reviewers must not retain personal copies or distribute them, and should not share manuscripts with colleagues unless explicitly permitted by the Editor‑in‑Chief 

 Confidentiality is paramount: reviewers may not use data, arguments, or ideas from the manuscript for any purpose unrelated to the review—such use may constitute a conflict of interest and is unacceptable. If any suspicion of misconduct arises—such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or fabrication—reviewers should report their concerns confidentially to the Editor‑in‑Chief without sharing them with other parties.

Reviews must be objective, fair, professional, and free from personal or disciplinary bias. Comments should be constructive, respectful, and based solely on the manuscript’s scientific merit and originality. Reviewers are expected to verify the originality of the submission, remain vigilant for signs of plagiarism or redundant publication, and confirm they have not been asked to review their own previous work without proper attribution. Lastly, reviewers must adhere to the timeline set by the editorial office. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they should promptly inform the Editor‑in‑Chief and request an extension if necessary.

2.5 Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline, he/she should inform the Editor-in-Chief immediately to determine whether a longer time or another Reviewer should be appointed. Typically, the time to complete a review is four weeks.

C: Code of Ethics for Editorial Board

3.1 Handling of submitted manuscript

Editor-in-Chief should evaluate the merit of a manuscript as soon as it is received.   An acknowledgement with a reference number must be sent to the Authors once the manuscript is received.  The manuscript deemed to be in good order must be sent to reviewers without delay. Confidentiality of the manuscripts must be ensured and not disclose any information regarding manuscripts to anyone other than the people involved in the publishing process.

3.2  Decision Quality

The Editor-in-Chef must provide the Authors with an explanation of the editorial decision on a manuscript. Editor-in-Chief should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewers’ comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author.

3.3 Submission by Editorial Board Members

All manuscripts submitted to The Journal undergo a rigid double-blind review process including those received from the Editorial Board members. In addition, when making editorial decisions about peer reviewed articles where an editor is an Author or is acknowledged as a contributor, The Journal will ensure that the affected editors exclude themselves from the publication process including the review process and decision on the manuscript. Although editors are allowed to submit manuscript to The Journal, too many submissions from the Journal’s own Editorial Board is not allowed. 

3.4 Handling Conflict of Interest by the Editors

When editors are presented with manuscript where their own interests may influence their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, they should hand over the handling of the manuscript to a suitably qualified editor in the board. The Editorial Board will appoint a suitable member to handle the manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally free of personal biases that may affect his/her judgments.

D: Ethics on Post Publication

4.1 Amendments

Changes can be requested by the Authors of the publication due to a variety of reason. These amendments may fall into one of four categories: erratum, corrigendum, retraction or addendum.

4.1.1 Erratum

Erratum is the notification of an important error made by The Journal during production of the article that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the Authors, or of The Journal.

4.1.2  Corrigendum

Corrigendum is the notification of an important error made by the Author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the Authors or the journal. All Authors must sign corrigenda submitted for publication.

4.1.3 Retraction

Retraction is the notification of invalid results. All Co-Authors must sign a retraction specifying the error and stating briefly how the conclusions are affected and submit it for publication.  Retractions are judged according to whether the main conclusion of the article is no longer held or is seriously undermined because of subsequent information coming to light of which the Authors were not aware at the time of publication. Readers who wish to draw attention to published work requiring retraction should write to The Editor-in-Chief who will seek advice from reviewers if they judge that the information is likely to draw into question the main conclusions of the published article. The author of the article will be given a chance to give an explanation regarding the query.

4.1.4 Addendum

Addendum is the notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to an article, usually in response to readers' request for clarification.

E: Penalties and Sanctions

The Journal’s Editorial Board has the sole responsibility and authority to determine the proper sanction. Plagiarism is a scientific misconduct and is an unacceptable violation of publication ethics. The Journal takes scientific misconduct seriously and will be dealt with promptly and fairly.  The Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Boards, and the Reviewers are the primary means of detecting plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to The Journal.  Given the serious nature of a charge of plagiarism, it is required that confidentiality be maintained throughout the process. The charge of plagiarism, supporting materials and outcomes are only to be made known to those people who are involved in the review process.

Due process and confidentiality are important in all cases of alleged plagiarism, falsification and other unethical conduct. Such cases will be handled according to the Publication Code of Ethics of the Editorial Board and UKM Publication Board.

In cases where the Editorial Board and UKM Publication Board determined that an unethical conduct occurred, the manuscript will be rejected. If the article has been published, it will be retracted promptly.  The Authors may be barred from submitting to The Journal for a period (one to three years) depending on the nature of the misconduct. The Journal reserves the right to evaluate issues of misconduct such as plagiarism and redundancy, etc. on a case-by-case basis.

5.1 Consequences

Authors: Any work in the manuscript that has been proven to contain any form of plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.  Editor and/or reviewers shall report cases of suspected unethical publishing behavior of the Author(s) to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief who shall ensure an appropriate action and subsequently bring it to The Journal’s Editorial Board and UKM Publication Board for a suitable action below depending upon the severity of the case:

• Notice to the Author(s) involved,
• Rejection of the manuscript,
• Retraction of article that has been published with appropriate notice in the website and the following hardcopy issue of The Journal.
• Ban from submission to The Journal for a period of time, normally up to 3 years.
• Informing the Authors’ institution of the unethical conduct for their further action.

Editorial Board members: Journal reputation depends heavily on the conduct and fairness of its Board members. The Editorial Board members shall demonstrate their dedicated efforts to this effect at all times. Complainants shall bring cases of suspected members’ misconduct to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief who shall ensure that the relevant documentation substantiating an unacceptable violation of publication ethics is made available to the Journal’s Editorial Board and UKM Publication Board for a suitable action.  Any member who holds an editorial office at The Journal with proven unethical conducts will be dismissed from that office. Additionally, penalties would typically include the sanctions as in the case of Authors found guilty.

Bibliography

COPE. (2019). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 11, 1–11.

Elsevier. (2022). Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Elsevier Journal Guidelines.