Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Fountain of Informatics Journal published many related subjects on informatics science such as
- Information System,
- Software Engineering,
- Computer Network,
- Game Technology.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Articles published in the Fountain of Informatics Journal were reviewed by two reviewers before being published through a blind peer review. The decision on whether or not an article submitted by the Chief Editor in the Board of Editors Board forum is based on or comments from the reviewers.

To Check Plagiarism in this journal using Plagiarism Checker X with maximum tolerance 20 percent.

 

Publication Frequency

Fountain of Informatics journal published article semi-annual (May 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.

 

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 Fee

Fountain of Informatics Journal does not charge for article processing charges, submission and publication charges

 

Important Dates

Fountain of Informatics Journal published semi-annual (May and November)
1. Time for Review Article maximum 4 weeks
2. Issuance Period May
3. Issuance Period November

Submit for Paper Open All Year

 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Fountain of Informatics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas Darussalam Gontor. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer reviewer and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Fountain of Informatics 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.
Universitas Darussalam Gontor as publisher of Fountain of Informatics Journal 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, the University of Darussalam Gontor and Editorial Board will assist in
communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and
necessary.
Publication Decisions
The editor of the Fountain of Informatics Journal 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 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.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

The submitted manuscript would be check for plagiarism using by Plagiarism Checker X with maximum tolerance 20 percent

 

Indexing

This Journal indexed by several index institution including 
              
on progress: 
  
and continue to develop in the future.

Sinta Score: S3

 

Readers Review Form

Article Review Form 2018

1. The subject matter is accurate, current and complete.*

  
  

If No, please explain:

 ...

2. Whether appropriate references and resources are listed.*

  
  

If No, please explain:

 ...

3. The information is organized in a logical and appropriate format for the intended audience.*

  
  
  

4. Illustrations are suitable for clarification and/or attractiveness.*

  
  
  

5. Accurate and complete instructions/information are given.*

  
  
  

6. Do you recommend this paper for publication?*

  
  
  
  

7. Comment to Author (Specific)*

 ...

 

Review Articles Guide

Substance Articles Review

The reviewer will review the material according to the standard component of the article. If the contents of the article deviate significantly, please write down your comments.

  1. Title: A good title is a method. The title should be in accordance with the content of the manuscript is adequate, clear, precise and not multiple interpretations. Please advise the title if necessary.
  2. Abstract: Abstract should be stated briefly the purpose of research, methods, methods, and core answers. Remember the abstract is the most widely read part of the paper.
  3. Viewing References: Authors should credit the contributions of others relevant to the article through a citation. Citation in the introduction should be able to show innovation and novelty by author through gap analysis. Quotes should not be excessive.
  4. Objective: The purpose of the review of the article should be well defined and will be able to answer the hypothesis.
  5. Methods that can be used to achieve the right goal in order to repeat the work of the author. The tools, materials, hardware and software platforms used in the research also need to be elaborated.
  6. Clarity: Authors should write simple, concise and effective method information to be easily understood by the reader.
  7. Organizational delivery: The text should develop or explain the subject of the study logically and effectively.
  8. Duplication: The manuscript does not repeat the published work of the author or anyone else. Check whether the script can be shortened without losing content by uniting or more tables and images. Reviewers may provide some comments if there is duplication in the text.
  9. Calculation: In some randomly selected cases, reviewers are checked whether you can verify the calculations made by the author.
  10. Linking Text with Tables and Drawings: All tables and images must be referenced in text or paragraphs. The statements in the text must match the contents of the table and the image.
  11. Title Tables and Drawings: The title should state the content. Please advise to improve the quality of the table title or image.
  12. Title in table or caption: interpretation must be clear and decisive and use the correct SI unit.
  13. Graphics: The data to present the graphics or images should be accurate.
  14. Conclusion: The conclusion to answer the hypothesis should be stated adequately and clearly and must be supported by data and testing.
  15. Alleged: The author should clearly distinguish between allegations and facts.
  16. References: All references in the manuscript must be in the References. Minimum referral of at least 5 (five) pieces with 60% primary reference content (scientific journals, proceedings articles, reference books, thesis or dissertation) and published at the latest 10 (ten) years.

    Delivering the Review Results

    Once you have done the review, you can download additional article and file files. You can fill out a review form or comment or upload a file for editors or authors about your results. You are expected to provide quality article recommendations. Review should be completed in 4 weeks. If you need more time, you can submit it to Editor (informatika@unida.gontor.ac.id)