Additional Menu
AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA
AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA
Tarlim Jurnal Pendidikan Agama Islam requires all contributing authors to meet stringent criteria to guarantee academic integrity and accountability. Proper authorship attribution is a fundamental element of research integrity, primarily because it establishes accountability and rightfully credits those who create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work. The journal's editorial board strictly enforces these criteria to ensure fairness and transparency in scholarly communication.
Defining Authorship
To be listed as an author, an individual must have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research. The journal mandates that authorship should be strictly limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the study, which includes involvement in the conception, design, data collection, or critical interpretation of the research findings. Furthermore, every designated author is fully expected to share public responsibility for the work's content and must have thoroughly reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript to be published.
To be listed as an author, an individual must have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research. The journal mandates that authorship should be strictly limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the study, which includes involvement in the conception, design, data collection, or critical interpretation of the research findings. Furthermore, every designated author is fully expected to share public responsibility for the work's content and must have thoroughly reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript to be published.
Unacceptable Authorship Practices
The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy against unethical authorship practices, as accurately reflecting contributions is paramount. The inclusion of individuals who do not meet the core criteria—often done to falsely boost a paper's credibility—is considered gift or guest authorship, which is entirely unacceptable. Conversely, deliberately omitting individuals who have indeed made significant contributions is known as ghost authorship, and our editorial team is trained to identify and address these ghost, guest, or gift authorship issues before publication.
The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy against unethical authorship practices, as accurately reflecting contributions is paramount. The inclusion of individuals who do not meet the core criteria—often done to falsely boost a paper's credibility—is considered gift or guest authorship, which is entirely unacceptable. Conversely, deliberately omitting individuals who have indeed made significant contributions is known as ghost authorship, and our editorial team is trained to identify and address these ghost, guest, or gift authorship issues before publication.
Changes in Authorship
Any modifications to the author list after the initial submission must be handled with utmost transparency and proper justification. If there is a request to add, remove, or rearrange the names of authors during the review or proofing process, the corresponding author must provide a valid reason to the editor and ensure that all originally listed authors explicitly agree to any changes in authorship in writing.
Any modifications to the author list after the initial submission must be handled with utmost transparency and proper justification. If there is a request to add, remove, or rearrange the names of authors during the review or proofing process, the corresponding author must provide a valid reason to the editor and ensure that all originally listed authors explicitly agree to any changes in authorship in writing.
Artificial Intelligence and Authorship
In light of technological advancements, the journal explicitly states that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as Large Language Models, cannot be listed as authors. This policy strictly aligns with the core ethical principle that AI cannot take legal or moral responsibility for a submitted academic work, clearly indicating that AI tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.
In light of technological advancements, the journal explicitly states that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as Large Language Models, cannot be listed as authors. This policy strictly aligns with the core ethical principle that AI cannot take legal or moral responsibility for a submitted academic work, clearly indicating that AI tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.
Handling Authorship Disputes
In the event of disagreements regarding who qualifies as an author, the journal's editorial board will not attempt to adjudicate the dispute internally. Instead, the editors are firmly committed to using standardized COPE workflows to handle authorship disputes efficiently by suspending the review process and referring the matter to the relevant authors' institutions for resolution.
In the event of disagreements regarding who qualifies as an author, the journal's editorial board will not attempt to adjudicate the dispute internally. Instead, the editors are firmly committed to using standardized COPE workflows to handle authorship disputes efficiently by suspending the review process and referring the matter to the relevant authors' institutions for resolution.
