FOCUS AND SCOPE
Wiga: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Ekonomi (WIGA) has been published by STIE Widyagama Lumajang. WIGA is published twice a year in March and September.
WIGA focuses on issues relating to empirical investigations of the Indonesian economy. WIGA aims to tie researchers to share high-quality publications at the national level through a process of double-blind review.
Articles published in WIGA are expected to cover a variety of topics in the economic field and use standard economic analysis tools that focus on the Indonesian economy. Topics might include the fields of Economics: public economics, international economics, monetary economics, financial economics, game theory, health economics, labor economics and others related to economics. Business: finance, marketing, consumer behavior, human resource management, organizational behavior, strategic management, operations and innovation, entrepreneurship, ethics.
It is expected that students and researchers are facilitated by WIGA to play an important role in understanding the Indonesian economy.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Every manuscript submitted to Wiga : Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Ekonomi is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers in the form of "double-blind review". The decision for publication, amendment, or rejection is based upon their reports/recommendations. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.
This journal is published twice a year in March and September.
PUBLISHING AND ETHICS GUIDELINES
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal reflects the quality of the work of the author with the institution concerned. Therefore, peer-reviewed journals need to have ethical standards for all parties involved in publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and publishers. WIGA is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints and/or other commercial revenues do not affect or influence editorial decisions. Also, WIGA will assist in communication with other journals and/or publishers if this is needed for editors.
Duties of the Authors
The author of the original research report must present an accurate report of the work carried out as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately represented in the paper. A paper must contain sufficient details and references to enable others to replicate the work. "Statements that are deceptive or intentionally inaccurate are unethical and unacceptable behavior". Professional publications and articles must also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinions must be identified.
A writer should not, in general, publish a text that describes the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without written and explicit permission from the source. Writing must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the study reported, and see and approve the final version of the paper and agree to submit it for publication.
All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial conflicts or other substantive interests. When a writer finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his self-published work, the author must immediately notify the chief editor of WIGA and work with the editor to retract or repair the paper.
The authors must ensure that they have written the original work in full, and if the author has used the work and / or words of others that this has been quoted or quoted correctly. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'graduating' other people's papers as the author's paper, to copying or paraphrasing important parts of other papers (without attribution), to claim the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
Writing must be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the research reported. All people who have made significant contributions must be registered as co-authors (so that means that the manuscript has at least author and co-author). Where other people have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. The appropriate author must ensure that all suitable co-authors and no co-authors are improperly included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the final version of the paper and have agreed to submit it for publication.
When a writer finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his self-published work, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or repair the paper. If the editor or publisher knows from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, the author must immediately withdraw or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor about the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of the Editors
The editor is responsible for deciding which articles are submitted to journals that must be reviewed and published. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers must always encourage that decision. Editor in chief must seriously prevent defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor must evaluate the manuscript for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the author.
Any editor and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the manuscript sent to anyone other than the appropriate author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisers, and publishers, as appropriate. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted text may not be used in the editor's research without the author's written consent. Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Editors must resign from considering the manuscript where they have a conflict of interest. The editor must ask all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and issue corrections if competing interests are disclosed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate actions must be taken, such as publication of revocation or disclosure of concern. An editor must take reasonably responsive steps when ethical complaints have been submitted regarding the manuscript submitted or the paper published. Every act of unethical publishing behavior reported must be seen, even though it was discovered many years after publication.
Duties of the Reviewers
Peer reviews help the editor in chief in making editorial decisions and editorial communication with the author. Any selected referee who feels he is not eligible to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that a quick review is not possible, must notify the editor in chief and excuse himself from the review process. Each text received for review must be treated as a confidential document.
The review must be carried out objectively. Personal writer's inappropriate criticism. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Each statement that observations, derivations, or previously reported arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer must also draw the attention of the editor in chief of the substantial or overlapping similarities between the manuscripts considered and other published papers which have personal knowledge. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted text may not be used in the reviewers' research without the written consent of the author. Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers may not consider texts where they have a conflict of interest.
This journal uses the LOCKSS system to create a distributed filing system among participating libraries and allows the library to make permanent archives of journals for preservation and restoration purposes.
Already have a username/password for WIGA?
Need a Username / Password?
Registration and login are required to ship items online and to check the current shipping status.
An acceptable manuscript will meet the following general criteria: he reports useful contributions to science, a good methodology is used and explained in sufficient detail so that other capable scientists can repeat the experiment. Conclusions are supported by data, concise texts, well written, and understandable.
The article should at least consist of these parts: Introduction, Literature Review and Hypothesis Development (only literature review for qualitative research), Research Method, Result and Analysis, Conclusion and Reference. Acknowledgment (if any) should be placed after the Conclusion and before the Reference. The article must be written on A4 paper size with 10pt font size and single spacing. Page margin should 2 cm for all sides (top, bottom, left and right). The article should be written efficiently in approximately 15-20 pages. All pages must be numbered, including reference. Authors are encouraged to use Mendeley's application for citation and referencing. The manuscript must follow the WIGA template of the manuscript. Template for authors can be downloaded Click in here
Title, written in both Indonesian and English. Title in Indonesian should consist of no more than 13 words, while the title in English should consist of no more than 10 words. The name should not bear any title (Dr., Prof., etc). The author's name should be written in a complete mailing address should be provided. Also, please include an e-mail address for the corresponding author.
The abstract comes after the title page in the text. The abstract must be integrated and independent consisting of introduction and objectives, methods, results, conclusions, and suggestions. But the abstract must be written as a single paragraph. References must be avoided. Also, nonstandard or unusual abbreviations should be avoided, but if necessary, abbreviations must be defined in their first mention in the abstract itself. Abstracts must be written using 100 to 200 words that have no references and should also be followed by keywords of 3-5 words.
A brief background on the general study should be started (try a maximum of one paragraph). State of the art (a brief review of literature or previous research) to justify a statement of novelty or the significance or new contribution or originality of this article. Try to have a reference article from the journal of the last 10 years that reinforces the justification of originality. Gap analysis or statement of the gap (originality) or novelty (novelty statement) or the unique difference of this study compared to previous studies, also from the important side of whether the research was conducted. Problems and/or hypotheses (if any) and/or research objectives in this article.
The methodology section contains the approach used in producing scientific articles. Specifically for scientific research articles, the methodology section includes research methods, populations and samples, and data analysis steps.
Results And Discussion
(what / how) whether the data presented has been processed (not raw data), stated in tables or figures (choose one), and given information that is easy to understand? Write down the findings or findings, but don't discuss the discussion here;
(why) in the discussion section, there is a link between the results obtained and the basic concepts and/or hypotheses. The discussion made must be supported by real and clear facts.
(What else) is there compatibility or conflict with the results of other people's research? (Therefore, there must be references to other literature, especially literature mentioned in the state of the art of previous research). It may also be written about the implications of research results both theoretical and application.
Describes the research conclusion, limitations of the research, and suggestions for conducting future research.
References are written using the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Valid for references in text, tables, and figures. The article writing process must use a reference manager program (Mendeley, etc.). Updated reference libraries especially those used to justify originality or novelty (last 10 years). Keprimeran reference literature, try at least 80% of the primary literature). If the book form literature should be a primary book (which contains direct research results, not a compilation of other people's research); Books containing theoretical concepts (secondary) may be used as a reference, but try only a maximum of 20%
Table and Figure
Tables and Figures should be given titles and numbers, while the source of table and figure are clearly and explicitly stated. The title of the tables and figure is typed in the center. The title of tables and figures should be written in bold. Sources of tables and figures should be placed under the table and figures, typed from the left margin. The format of the table should only use a horizontal line and omit any vertical lines.
Common Citation Formats in Reference according to APA Style:
Journal article by one author:
Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515-332. doi:10.1048/9385-09126.96.36.199
Journal article by two authors:
Loesche, L. S., & Tsai, S. D. (1998). More organization, less espresso: Effects of caffeine on manuscript length. Human Behaviour, 5, 1-43. Retrieved from http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ens
Journal article, three to seven authors:
Saywitz, K. J., Mannarino, A. P., Berliner, L., & Cohen, J. A. (2000). Treatment for sexually abused children and adolescents. American Psychologist, 55, 1040-1049. doi:10.5497/4578-2587.456.2.548
Journal article, more than seven authors:
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., . . . Griffin, W. A. (2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother-child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 843-856. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/journals/ccp.html
Book chapter (electronic version):
Booth, D. A. (1980). Conditioned reactions in motivation. In F. M. Toates & T. R. Hall (Eds.), Analysis of motivational processes (pp. 77-102). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/index.asp
Note: See APA manual (6th ed.), pages 202-205, for more versions of electronic book sources.
Book (print version):
Toates, F. M. & Hall, T. R. (Eds.). (1980). Analysis of motivational processes. New York: Academic Press.
Note: If more than one city is given for the publisher of a book, name the most convenient city for finding the book (e.g., if Academic Press is published in New York and London, list only New York for an American audience or only London for a European audience).
Parker-Pope, T. (2008, May 6). Psychiatry handbooks linked to the drug industry. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com
If you only cite an abstract but the full text of the article is also available, cite the online abstract as any other online citations, adding "[Abstract]" after the article or source name. However, if the full text is not available, you may use an abstract that is available through an abstracts database as a secondary source.
Paterson, P. (2008). How well do young offenders with Asperger Syndrome cope in custody?: Two prison case studies [Abstract]. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(1), 54-58.
Point readers to raw data by providing a Web address (use "Retrieved from") or a general place that houses data sets on the site (use "Available from").
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2008). Indiana income limits [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL08/in_fy2008.pdf
Graphic Data (e.g. Interactive Maps and Other Graphic Representations of Data)
Give the name of the researching organization followed by the date. In brackets, provide a brief explanation of what type of data is there and in what form it appears. Finally, provide the project name and retrieval information.
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment. (2007). [Graph illustration the SORCE Spectral Plot May 8, 2008]. Solar Spectral Data Access from the SIM, SOLSTICE, and XPS Instruments. Retrieved from http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p? page=input_data_for_ spectra.ion
Qualitative Data and Online Interviews
If an interview is not retrievable in audio or print form, cite the interview only in the text (not in the reference list) and provide the month, day, and year in the text. If an audio file or transcript is available online, use the following model, specifying the medium in brackets (e.g. [Interview transcript, Interview audio file]):
Butler, C. (Interviewer) & Stevenson, R. (Interviewee). (1999). Oral History 2 [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from Johnson Space Center Oral Histories Project Web site: http:// www11.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/oral_histories.htm
Footnote cannot be used as a reference. The footnote should be used only for information broadening that may distract reading continuity if included in a text. The footnote should be typed single-spaced and numerically numbered with an Arabic superscript numeric. The footnote should be placed at the end of the text.
SUBMISSION PREPARATION CHECKLIST
- As part of the submission process, authors are required to check their submission complies with all of the following items, and shipping can be returned to authors who do not comply with these guidelines.
- I have read and followed the guideline writer. I understand that my article can be rejected if it doesn't follow the guidelines.
- Submissions have not been published before, nor before other journals to consider
- This shipment is original work, free from all forms of plagiarism (text, data, and numbers).
- This submission has been approved for publication by all joint authors and related authorities (eg an institution or sponsor).
- The authors adhere to ethical standards as outlined in the Statement of Publication and Malpractice Ethics
- I have downloaded and prepared the shipping document
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Articles are freely available to the public without any subscription with permitted reuse. For open access articles, permitted third party (re)use is defined by the following Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The name and email address entered on this journal site will be used exclusively for this journal and will not be available for other purposes or other parties.
This journal imposes the following author fees.
Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)
Authors are NOT required to pay for Article Submission Fees as part of the shipping process to contribute to review costs.
Article Publication: 1,000,000.00 (IDR)
Each contributing author to be delivered two copies of the journal (hardcopy). We encourage authors to promote our Journal to their colleagues.
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please note the following questions:
- Was the article requested to be reviewed according to your expertise? If you receive a text that covers topics that are not by your area of expertise, please notify the editor or recommend alternative reviewers.
- Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and need a longer period, let the editor know or suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Are there potential conflicts of interest? Meanwhile, a conflict of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclosing all conflicts of interest to the editor before being reviewed.
The results of your review will help the editor decide whether to publish the article in our journal or not. Peer reviewers are responsible for criticizing by reading and evaluating the manuscript in the area of expertise, then providing constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of articles, how to improve the strength and quality of papers, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
Conducting a review
- The title explains the article's content.
- An abstract must include goals/objectives, research methods, findings, and contributions in 100-200 words.
- Problem Formulation
- Introduction of problems and their significance
- Identify clear problems and appropriate research questions
- Coverage of problem complexity
- Clear goals
- Research Methodology
- A brief description of the usual research methodology
- Reasons for choosing a particular method are well explained
- Accurate research design
- Design samples accordingly
- The process of collecting data is correct
- Data analysis methods are relevant and sophisticated
- Empirical and theoretical benefits
- Economic benefits
- There are new findings
- References are discussed thoroughly in this article
- The reference given is strong
- Quotes and references are used correctly and honestly
- Article Presentation and Systematic Sequence
- Length of article
- Article presentation framework and flow
- Article originality
After you read the article and assess its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor. The recommendations are as follows:
- Scripts are not recommended for publication for one or more of the following reasons:
- It does not make new contributions to knowledge
- Many data or data errors are questionable
- Findings cannot be trusted, which may be caused by incorrect data
- Hypotheses are not defined or answered
- The methodology and / or procedures used are inadequate and/or inadequate so as not to answer the research question
- Statements and conclusions that do not meet the requirements are not supported by data and findings from this study
- It is not by the objectives and scope of the journal
- Accepted for publication. Scripts make new contributions using reliable data, methodologies, and references. The analysis points are presented. There are clear links from research questions to the discussion of results. Manuscripts must be published.
- Minor revisions. Manuscripts can be published with minor changes as expected by reviewers. No further review is needed. The following are examples of reasons for minor revisions:
- Minor data errors that are easily fixed
- Typographic typographical errors (use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling)
- Numbers and / or tables are too little / too much
- Some analysis points or references do not exist
- Main revision. Manuscripts may be published but major changes are needed. Further review is needed. The following are examples of the main revision reasons:
- Main data error (data does not match text, tables or images)
- Bad writing (incomplete sentences, large rewriting needs to have a logical flow)
- Hypotheses, methodologies and / or procedures are not clearly stated, making paper difficult for others to imitate
- Figures and / or tables require major revisions
- Some important points of analysis or references do not exist
- Note about revisions. If revisions are needed, please show the editor whether you will be happy to review the revised article.
The editor will have a final decision about the article whether to accept or reject the article. The editor can ask the author to revise the article before making a final decision.