Tentang Jurnal Ini

FOCUS AND SCOPE

As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, the scope of this journal is in learning and instruction area which provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific researches in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching at Chemistry Education. The journal welcomes original empirical investigation. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in review and the selection process concerns the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction. Instruction, learning and teaching, curriculum development, learning environment, teacher education, educational, technology, and educational development at Thingking Skill and Creativity

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal (TSCJ) is committed to the principle of open access, which aims to encourage the widest dissemination of scholarly knowledge. This policy describes TSCJ’s approach to open access publishing and its commitment to providing free and unrestricted access to its published articles.

Open Access Model

TSCJ follows the gold open access model, whereby all articles published in the journal are freely accessible to readers without subscription or payment barriers. Authors retain copyright in their articles, and TSCJ applies a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license, to ensure that authors’ rights are protected and that readers can share and adapt the content for non-commercial purposes.

Author Responsibilities

Authors submitting manuscripts to Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal agree to publish their work under the CC-BY-SA license. This license grants readers the right to use, share, and adapt the article for non-commercial purposes, provided they give appropriate attribution and distribute derivative works under the same license.

Compliance and Review

Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal periodically reviews and updates our open access policy to ensure that we remain aligned with best practices and evolving global initiatives. We are committed to supporting the open access movement, promoting the free exchange of knowledge, encouraging global collaboration, and advancing scientific progress.

Contact

For questions or requests regarding TSCJ's open access policy, authors and readers can contact the team at Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jl. Udayana Central Campus Singaraja, Bali, Indonesia 81116 Tel. +62362-22928 Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jalan Udayana Singaraja (Undiksha Central Campus) Tel. (0362) 23884 | Fax. (0362) 29884 Email: wayanwidiana85@undiksha.ac.id Website: http://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal (TSCJ) operates under a conventional single-blind peer review policy, in which the identity of the reviewer is always concealed from the submitting author. Authors are expected to present their manuscripts honestly, without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or inappropriate data manipulation. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by anonymous referees for their contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation.

Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal (TSCJ) follows a stringent and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a single-blind peer-review model, where the identity of the reviewers is kept confidential during the review process.

Submission and Initial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal (TSCJ) undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their relevance and compliance with the journal’s scope and guidelines. Papers are then sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers, who are members of the Editorial Board or individuals holding equivalent positions in the field. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are processed further.

Peer Review

Each eligible manuscript is subsequently sent for review by at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and previous contributions to the field.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the submitted manuscript based on scientific quality, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to assist authors in enhancing the quality of their manuscripts.

Review Duration

Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal (TSCJ) strives to provide timely and efficient peer reviews. Editors will inform authors of the review results as soon as possible, typically within 4 to 12 weeks. The decision of the Editor is final, and no correspondence will be entertained regarding manuscripts deemed unsuitable for publication in this journal. All correspondence, including notifications about editorial decisions and requests for revisions, will be sent via email.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Our Publication Ethics are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting Standards:

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

Originality and Plagiarism:

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications:

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.

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.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

DUTIES OF EDITOR

Publication Decisions:

Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

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.

Review of Manuscripts:

Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play:

The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality:

The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

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.

Confidentiality:

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

Standards of Objectivity:

Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work

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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Promptness:

The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

POLICY OF SCREENING FOR PLAGIARISM

Papers submitted to the Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal will be screened for plagiarism using Turnitin plagiarism detection tools. Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to the Indonesian Journal Of Educational Research and Review must have a similarity level of less than 20% (Exclude Bibliography), and the similarity score to each source is no more than 3%.

Plagiarism is the exposure of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. To accurately judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:

An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
Substantial copying implies an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge, or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words, or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.

RETRACTION

The papers published in the Thinking Skills and Creativity Journal will be considered to retract in the publication if :

They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
it constitutes plagiarism
it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.