- 07 Feb 2022
- ©This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- 28 Jan 2022
- 28 Jan 2022
- 28 Jan 2022
- Sozialwissenschaften, Psychologie, Allgemeines, Pädagogik, andere
1st WoW-SAIPIS 2021 is an article writing workshop centered on social sciences and education, open and welcoming contributions from various disciplines and approaches that meet at intersections. We are interested in scholarship that crosses disciplinary lines and speaks to readers from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. In other words, 1st WoW-SAIPIS 2021 will be a forum for scholars as they speak to a wider audience of our many sub-fields and specialties, rather than a location for narrower conversations that are more appropriate in more specialized conferences.
We suggest the following broad areas of research:
- Social Sciences and Laws
- History and Cultural Studies
- Interdisciplinary Studies
- Moral and Humanities
- Policy, Politics, and Communication
The proceedings represent the latest in research, development, deployment and projects on a range of topics presented at the International Conference of Social Science and Education. The papers published under each conference are sorted according to the themes and topics defined under each event. Papers are published according to the events at which they were presented by the authors. They can be searched by theme, author, or title. All the papers published here are open access, thus free of charge. Complete versions of the conference proceedings are also available as PDF to download.
All articles submitted to WOW-SAIPIS will generally be reviewed by two experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
• Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
• Is methodologically sound
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly references previous relevant work
• Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
Reviewers advise the editor of WOW-SAIPIS, who is responsible for the final decision to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting parties. In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be advised when Editors decide further review is needed.
Guidelines for Reviewers
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. The review process uses a double blind review system. Those manuscripts evaluated by editors to be inappropriate regarding the criteria are rejected promptly without external review. Manuscripts evaluated to be of potential interest to our readership are sent to reviewers. The editors then decide based on the reviewer’s recommendation from among several possibilities: rejected, require major revision, need minor revision, or accepted.
Ethical Guideline for Publication
The publication of an article in proceeding (Sciendo) 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 methods. It is therefore important to agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor, the reviewer, the publisher, and the society. As the publisher of Sciendo takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and it recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. The Faculty of Social Science Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editors of WOW-SAIPIS are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to them 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 presiding’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 their decisions.
It is basically the author’s duty to only submit a manuscript that is free from plagiarism and academic malpractices. The editor, however, double checks each article before its publication. The first step is to check plagiarism against the offline database developed by Faculty of Social Science and, secondly, against as many as possible online databases.
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.
The editors 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 editors' own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the author in improving the quality of the paper.
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 editors and excuse himself from the review process.
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 a proper citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors' 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 with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the papers.
Every manuscript submitted to WOW-SAIPIS is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of "double-blind review". Decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendation. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.
Duties of Authors
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.
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 behaviour 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 research. 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.
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.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.
If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, WOW-SAIPIS will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
ABSTRACTING & INDEXING
Conference is covered by the following services:
Dimensions (Digital Science)
Primo Central (ExLibris)