The EMBAIC 2024 Will Be Conducted Virtually On 20-21 December 2024
Hosted By MJK Publisher
Indonesia. The Theme Is “Technology For EMBA In 4.0 Era”. EMBAIC 2024 Aims To Facilitate Researchers
Practitioners
Students
And Policymakers To Share Their Thoughts On The Latest Trend In Economics
Management
Business
And Accounting. The EMBAIC 2024 Welcomes Research Papers For Oral Presentations.
SCOPES
– Economics
– Management
– Business
– Accounting
THE PAPER
Please Be Noted That The Submission Process Is Conducted In The Submission System Only (NOT BY EMAIL) To Guarantee A Systematics Administration. Authors Must Create An Account In The Submission System
Then Submit An Paper In The System By Logging Into Their Account.
Registration Fee
The Following Information Is The Registration Fee For Economics
Management
Business
And Accounting International Conference (EMBAIC) 2024. You May Pay The Registration Fee. Once Paid
The Registration Fee Is Non-refundable. If You Have Any Questions
Please Do Not Hesitate To Contact The Organizer At The Official Email Embaic@mjkpublisher.or.id.
REGISTRATION PUBLICATION
Local Participants
Non Student IDR 350
000 At Cost
Student IDR 300
000 At Cost
International Participants
Non Student USD 100 At Cost
Student USD 50 At Cost
PAYMENT
Please Pay The Registration Fee With A Bank Transfer.
Bank Name : Bank Negara Indonesia (BNI)
Account Name : MITRA JAWARA KARYA PUBLISHER
Account Number : 1880920302 - IDR
Please Save Your Payment Proof In An Image File (.jpg) Or PDF.
Peer Review Process
Each Manuscript Will Undergo The Blind Peer-review Process By The Scientific Committees To Maintain High-quality Publication. Subsequently
The Peer-review Process Consists Of Two Stages. The First Stage Is Initial Screening
Where The Editorial Team Checks The Minimum Criteria Of The Manuscript. Meanwhile
The Second Stage Is The Review Process. The Peer-review Process Is Shown In The Figure Below.
At The First Stage
The Manuscript Is Screened By Editors Based On The Minimum Criteria:
1. The Manuscript Should Meet One Of The Conference Scopes.
2. The Similarity Should Be Below 20%.
3. The English Manuscript Quality Should Be Readable.
Please Be Noted
The Manuscript That Does Not Meet Those Minimum Criteria Will Be Rejected.
At The Second Stage
The Manuscript Is Reviewed By At Least Two Reviewers With Double-blind Peer Review. Therefore
Both The Reviewer And Author Identities Are Concealed From The Reviewers
And Vice Versa. The Reviewers Assess The Quality Of The Manuscript
Including The Research Methodology
Validity
And Novelty. The Reviewers Independently Make A Feedback/recommendation To The Editors On Whether The Manuscript Should Be Rejected Or Accepted. The Editors Will Consider The Reviewers’ Recommendation And Decide To Accept Or Reject The Manuscript.
Finally
The Only Sends The Manuscript To The Publisher If The Manuscript Has Passed And Completed The Peer Review Process.
Publication Ethics
These Guidelines Are Entirely Consistent With The COPE Principles Of Transparency And Best Practice Guidelines And The COPE Code Of Conduct. More Details Can Be Found Here: Https://publicationethics.org. We Encourage The Best Standards Of Publication Ethics And Take All Possible Measures Against Publication Malpractices. The Publisher Takes Its Duties Of Guardianship Over All Publishing Stages Extremely Seriously
And We Recognize Our Ethical And Other Responsibilities.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
Editorial Board
The Editorial Board Will Be Generated From Recognized Experts In The Field. The Editor Will Provide Full Names And Affiliations Of The Members As Well As Updated Contact Information For The Editorial Office On The Proceeding Webpage.
Publication Decisions
The Editor Should Be Responsible For Deciding Which Of The Articles Submitted To The Proceeding Should Be Published. The Validation Of The Work In Question And Its Importance To Researchers And Readers Must Always Drive Such Decisions. The Editor May Be Guided By The Proceeding’s Editorial Board’s Policies And Constrained By Such Legal Requirements
Copyright Infringement
And Plagiarism. The Editor May Confer With Other Editors Or Reviewers In Making This Decision.
Peer Review Process
All Of A Proceeding’s Content Should Be Subjected To Peer-review. Articles Submitted For Possible Publication Are Subjected To A Double-blind Peer-review Process. Articles Are First Reviewed By Editors. The Editor May Reject It Out Of Hand Either Because It Is Not Dealing With The Subject Matter For That Proceeding Or Because It Is Manifestly Of Low Quality
So That It Cannot Be Considered At All. Articles That Are Found Suitable For Review Are Then Sent To Two Experts In The Field Of The Paper. Referees Of A Paper Are Unknown To Each Other. Referees Are Asked To Classify The Paper As Publishable Immediately
Publishable With Amendments And Improvements
Or Not Publishable. Referees’ Evaluations Usually Include An Explicit Recommendation Of What To Do With The Manuscript. The Author Then Sees The Referees’ Comments.
Editors Should Be Ready To Justify Any Important Deviation From The Described Process. Editors Should Not Reverse Decisions On Publication Unless Serious Problems Are Identified. Editors Should Publish Guidance To Either Authors And Reviewers On Everything That Is Expected Of Them. This Guidance Should Be Regularly Updated And Will Refer To Or Link This Code.
Fair Play
The Editor Should Evaluate Manuscripts For Their Intellectual Content Without Regard To Race
Gender
Sexual Orientation
Religious Belief
Ethnic Origin
Citizenship
Or Political Philosophy Of The Authors. Editors´ Decision To Accept Or Reject A Paper For Publication Should Be Based Only On The Paper´s Importance
Originality And Clarity
And The Study´s Relevance To The Aim Of Proceeding.
Digital Archiving
The Editor Will Ensure Digital Preservation Of Access To The Proceeding Content By The Czech National Library Within Its WebArchive.
Confidentiality
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. Editors Will Ensure That The Material Submitted Remains Confidential While Under Review.
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. Privileged Information Or Ideas Obtained Through Peer Review Must Be Kept Confidential And Not Used For Personal Advantage. Editors Should Recuse Themselves (i.e. Should Ask A Co-editor
Associate Editor Or Other Members Of The Editorial Board Instead To Review And Consider) From Considering Manuscripts In Which They Have Conflicts Of Interest Resulting From Competitive
Collaborative
Or Other Relationships Or Connections With Any Of The Authors
Companies
Or (possibly) Institutions Connected To The Papers. Editors Should Require All Contributors To Disclose Relevant Competing Interests And Publish Corrections If Competing Interests Are Revealed After Publication.
Procedures For Dealing With Unethical Behaviour
Unethical Behaviour May Be Identified And Brought To The Attention Of The Editor And Publisher At Any Time
By Anyone. Whoever Informs The Editor Or Publisher Of Such Conduct Should Provide Sufficient Information And Evidence In Order For An Investigation To Be Initiated. All Allegations Should Be Taken Seriously And Treated In The Same Way Until A Successful Decision Or Conclusion Is Reached. Every Reported Act Of Unethical Publishing Behaviour Must Be Looked Into
Even If It Is Discovered Years After Publication.
The Editor Should Take Reasonably Responsive Measures When Ethical Complaints Have Been Presented Concerning A Submitted Manuscript Or Published Paper
In Conjunction With The Publisher. Such Measures Will Generally Include Contacting The Author Of The Manuscript Or Paper And Giving Due Consideration To The Respective Complaint Or Claims Made But May Also Include Further Communications To The Relevant Institutions And Research Bodies
Depending On The Misconduct Seriousness.
Minor Misconduct Might Be Dealt With Without The Need To Consult More Widely. In Any Event
The Author Should Be Given The Opportunity To Respond To Any Allegations. Serious Misconduct Might Require The Application Of One Or More Following Measures:
Informing Or Educating The Author Or Reviewer Where There Appears To Be A Misunderstanding Or Misapplication Of Acceptable Standards.
Publication Of A Formal Notice Detailing The Misconduct.
A Formal Letter To The Head Of The Author’s Or Reviewer’s Department Or Funding Agency.
Formal Retraction Or Withdrawal Of A Publication From The Proceeding
In Conjunction With Informing The Head Of The Author Or Reviewer’s Department
The Imposition Of A Formal Embargo On Contributions From An Individual For A Defined Period.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Publication And Submission Fee
Authors To Be Charged For Proofreading And Publication Fee. Full Information About Fees Must Be Clearly Stated On The Proceeding´s Website Before Authors Begin Preparing Thein Manuscript For Submission.
Reporting Standards
Authors Of Papers 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. Review And Professional Publication Articles Should Also Be Accurate And Objective
And Editorial „opinion‟ Works Should Be Clearly Identified As Such.
Data Access And Retention
Authors May Be 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. Plagiarism Takes Many Forms
From „passing Off‟ Another´s Paper As The Author´s Own Paper
To Copying Or Paraphrasing Substantial Parts Of Another´s Paper (without Attribution)
To Claiming Results From Research Conducted By Others. Plagiarism In All Its Forms Constitutes Unethical Publishing Behaviour And Is Unacceptable.
Multiple
Redundant Or Concurrent Publication
An Author Should Not
In General
Publish Manuscripts Describing Essentially The Same Research In More Than One Proceeding Or Primary Publication. Submitting The Same Manuscript To More Than One Proceeding Concurrently Constitutes Unethical Publishing Behaviour. In General
An Author Should Not Submit For Consideration In Another Proceeding A Previously Published Paper. The Copyright Remains With The Publisher.
Acknowledgement Of Sources
Proper Acknowledgement 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. Information Obtained Privately
As In Conversation
Correspondence
Or Discussion With Third Parties
Must Not Be Used Or Reported Without Explicit
Written Permission From The Source. Information Obtained In The Course Of Confidential Services
Such As Refereeing Manuscripts Or Grant Applications
Must Not Be Used Without The Explicit Written Permission Of The Author Of The Work Involved In These Services.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 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. Peer Review Is An Essential Component Of Formal Scholarly Communication. Authors Who Wish To Contribute To Publications Have An Obligation To Do A Fair Share Of Reviewing.
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
Unpublished Materials Disclosed In A Submitted Manuscript Must Not Be Used In A Reviewer´s Own Research Without The Written Consent Of The Author. 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