Focus and Scope

This academic journal is published by the Department of Sharia Financial Management, Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business at UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. The journal serves as a platform for researchers, academics, and practitioners interested in the fields of Sharia Economics and Business, Sharia Finance and Banking, as well as Sharia Accounting, and related disciplines. It is intended to foster discussions on ideas, current issues, and challenges in these areas.

Furthermore, the journal aims to contribute to addressing societal issues, bridging the gap between theory and practice, and more. The scope of this journal emphasizes studies on Sharia Financial Management and related fields, including but not limited to:

1. Sharia Financial Management
2. Management
3. Economics
4. Accounting
5. Sharia Business
6. Sharia Banking
7. Sharia Capital Markets
8. Sharia Wealth Management
9. Issues related to the Implementation/Practice of Sharia in Islamic Banking
10. Zakat and Waqf, Takaful, Corporate Sharia Finance
11. Sharia Risk Management
12. Sharia Financing Management
13. Islamic Business Ethics
14. Sharia Accounting
15. Other relevant interdisciplinary fields.

The journal aims to facilitate scholarly discussions and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in these fields.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The peer review process involves a collaborative assessment conducted by the editor and peer reviewers. The following outlines the steps of the peer review process:

1. Manuscripts submitted by authors must align with the journal's focus and scope and adhere to the writing guidelines of Finansha Journal.
2. The editorial team conducts an initial review of submitted articles, and the editor evaluates whether they meet the criteria set by Finansha Journal.
3. Articles that do not conform to the journal's criteria are promptly rejected without external review.
4. Articles deemed potentially engaging for readers undergo peer review.
5. Each article is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers. In specific cases, the editor may send the article to a third reviewer before making a decision if necessary.
6. The editor then makes a publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations, which may include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, sending for re-review, transferring to another journal, or rejection.
7. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism. Authors are advised to use plagiarism detection software for similarity checks. The editor examines plagiarism detection results using Turnitin software.

The publication process for authors' articles is as follows:

1. Authors submit their manuscripts.
2. Editorial evaluation (some articles may be rejected or returned before the review process).
3. Peer-review process.
4. Editor's decision.
5. Confirmation to the authors.

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...

Publication Frequency

Finansha: Journal of Sharia Financial Management is published twice a year, in June and December, both in online and print formats.

Article Publication Charge

Finansha does not charge any fees for authors and readers.

Screening Plagiarism

Finansha will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. Authors must thoroughly understand publication ethics regarding plagiarism. To ensure that your paper is free from plagiarism, we will undertake at least two steps:

1. Quick assessment using Turnitin plagiarism detection software.
2. Comprehensive evaluation by the editor

Reference Management

The Finansha Scientific Journal utilizes Mendeley and Zotero reference management software for citation and bibliography writing.

Publication Ethics

Finansha is a peer-reviewed journal, consistently published twice a year (starting in 2020) by the Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, State Islamic University Sunan Gunung Djati. It is available online as an open access source as well as in print. This statement explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal, including authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, reviewers, and publishers (Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, State Islamic University Sunan Gunung Djati)

This statement based on  COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Good Editors should:
(1) General duties and responsibilities
• actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encourage and be aware of research into peer review and ‘journalology’ and reassess journal processes in the light of new findings
• work to persuade their publishers to provide them with appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers) and adequate training to perform their role in a professional manner and raise the quality of their journal
• support initiatives designed to reduce academic misconduct
• support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assess the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revise policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
• ensure that any press releases issued by the journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

(2) Relations with readers
• ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (e.g. including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
• adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting (e.g. technical editing, use of CONSORT checklist for randomised trials1 , 2 )
• consider developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of nonresearch articles3
• adopt authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work)4 and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• inform readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

(3) Relations with authors
• publish clear instructions in their journals about submission and what they expect from authors
• provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor
• review author instructions regularly and provide links to relevant guidelines (e.g. ICMJE, COPE)
• require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
• respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned.
• be guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
• publish details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)

(4) Relations with reviewers
• provide clear advice to reviewers (which should be straightforward and regularly updated)
• require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission
• encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions, (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals)
• encourage reviewers to ensure the originality of submissions and be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• consider providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• seek to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
• encourage academic institutions to recognise peer-review activities as part of the scholarly process
• monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high quality
• develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, and update this on the basis of reviewer performance
• remove from the journal’s database any reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• seek to add new reviewers to the database to replace those who have been removed (because of poor performance or other reasons)
• ensure that the reviewer database reflects the academic community for their journal (e.g. by auditing the database in terms of reviewer age, gender, location, etc.)
• use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
• follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

(5) Relations with editorial board members
• identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
• appoint editorial board members for a fixed term of office (e.g. three years)
• provide clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, these might include:
o acting as ambassadors for the journal
o supporting and promoting the journal
o seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
o reviewing submissions to the journal
o accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
o attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
• consult editorial board members regularly (at least once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, inform them of any changes to journal policies, and identify future challenges

(6) Relations with journal owners and publishers
• establish mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and the journal owner/publisher with due process5
• have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher (the terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct)
• communicate regularly with their journal’s owners and publishers

(7) Editorial and peer-review processes
• ensure that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
• keep informed about research into peer review and technological advances
• adopt peer-review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
• review peer-review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
• refer troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flow charts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
• consider appointing an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

(8) Quality assurance
• have systems in place to detect falsified data, e.g. manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text (either for routine use or when suspicions are raised)
• base decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT2 ) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

(9) Protecting individual data
• publish their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable patient details or images) and explain this clearly to authors

(10) Encouraging academic integrity
• request evidence of ethical research approval for all relevant submissions and be prepared to question authors about aspects such as how patient consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering
• ensure that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki6 , Good Clinical Practice7 and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants
• ensure that reports of experiments on, or studies of, animals cite compliance with the US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals8 or other relevant guidelines
• consider appointing a journal ethics panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

(11) Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
• take steps to reduce covert redundant publication, e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered9
• ensure that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)10
• have systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

(12) Intellectual property
• adopt systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
• support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
• be prepared to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

(13) Commercial considerations
• have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments)
• publish a description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, special supplements, page charges, etc.)
• ensure that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
• ensure that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and is not influenced by commercial considerations

(14) Conflicts of interest
• publish lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)
• adopt suitable policies for handling submissions from themselves, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review (and have these set out in writing)

References / further reading
1. CONSORT statement. www.consort-statement.org
2. Plint AC, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. MJA 2006;185:263–7.
3. BMJ transparency policy. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorial-policies/transparency-policy
4. Marusic A, et al. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1035–44.
5. World Association of Medical Editors statement on the relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies
6. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm
7. Good Clinical Practice. http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/013595en.pdf
8. US Dept of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals http://www.nap. edu/readingroom/books/labrats/
9. De Angelis C, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004;364:911–2.
10. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

Publishing articles on Finansha is an important building block in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. This is a direct reflection of the quality of the author's work and the institutions that support it. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree on standards of ethical behavior that are expected for all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and the public.

As a publisher of Finansha, the Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University takes its guardianship duties over all stages of publishing seriously and acknowledges ethical and other responsibilities. The Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business at Sunan Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenues have no influence or influence on editorial decisions.

Publication decisions

The editor of the Finansha: Finansha- Journal of Sharia Financial Management  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 evaluates 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 use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Peer-Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer-reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help 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 considered as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Peer-review process should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Peer-reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany by the appropriate 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. Peer-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 behaviour 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 actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has 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 paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. 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 article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

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.