Velocity: Journal of Sharia Finance and Banking is a reviewed journal managed and published by the Department of Islamic Banking, Faculty of Islamic Economics and Business, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pekalongan. This scientific publication ethics statement is a statement of the code of ethics of all parties involved in the publication process of this scientific journal, including authors, editors, reviewers and publishers. This statement is based on Elsevier's recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Author's Duty

1. Reporting Standard : Authors must present an accurate report of the research work carried out, as well as an objective and significant discussion. Researchers must also present the results of the research honestly and without falsifying or manipulating data. A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to copy the work. Reports of fraud or intentionally providing inaccurate information are unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow journal submission guidelines.
2. Originality and Plagiarism : The writer must ensure that the written work is completely original. Manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication, unless the editor approves them. Relevant previous works and publications, whether by other researchers or those of the author, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. If possible, the main literature should be properly cited. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must be accompanied by quotation marks with the appropriate citation.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication : Authors are generally not allowed to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. An author also may not publish manuscripts describing the essence of the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable behavior.
4. Source recognition : Authors must know all sources of data used in research and cite influential publications in their research reports. Recognition of the work of others must always be given appropriately.
5. Paper authorship: The writing of a research publication must accurately reflect the individual contribution to the research work and its reporting. Authors should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. Everyone who has made a significant contribution must be registered as a co-author. Other people or parties who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, should be recognized or registered as contributors. The correspondence writer ensures that all suitable authors must be listed in the manuscript and that there are no non-conformists, and that all authors have viewed and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to the submission of publication.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest : All authors must disclose in their text any substantive or financial conflicts of interest that may be interpreted to affect the results or interpretation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Work : When an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the manuscript.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects : If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have an unusual hazard inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify this in the manuscript.

Editor's job

1. Publication Decision : Based on the editorial board review report, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive this decision. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by applicable legal provisions, such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or peer partners in making these decisions. Editors must be responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of published records.
2. Manuscript Review : Editors ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for authenticity. Editors must organize and use  peer-reviews  fairly and wisely. The editor explains the peer-review process   and informs the author and indicates which parts of the journal have been reviewed. Editors should use appropriate  peer-review  for papers to be considered for publication by selecting those with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Aspects of Justice : The editor ensures that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality or political views. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions is to uphold the principles of independence and editorial integrity. Editors are in a strong position to make decisions about publication, therefore it is imperative that this process is carried out as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality : Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of author data protection and confidentiality. This includes seeking properly informed consent regarding the actual research presented, or approval for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest : Material not published in a submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author. Editors must not be involved in decisions about papers with conflicts of interest.

 Duties of a reviewer

1. Confidentiality : Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as confidential documents. Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
2. Source acknowledgment : Reviewers should ensure that the authors are aware of all sources of data used in the study. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Statements that previously reported observations, derivations or arguments should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also declare to the editor if there is any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscripts under consideration and concurrent submissions to other journals or published articles, or suspect that violations may have occurred either during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. Reviewers should keep their concerns confidential and not investigate further personally unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standard of Objectivity : The review of submitted manuscripts must be carried out objectively and reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers must follow the journal's directions regarding the specific feedback required. Reviewers must be constructive in their review and provide feedback that will help the author to improve the text.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest : Information or ideas obtained in the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must reject manuscripts that have a conflict of interest due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript. In the case of a  double-blind review , if the reviewer suspects the identity of the author, notify the journal if this creates a potential conflict of interest.
5. Accuracy : Reviewers must respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers only agree to review the manuscript if they are reasonably certain they can return the review or review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe, and inform the journal promptly if an extension of time is required. In the event that a reviewer feels that it is impossible to complete the review of the manuscript within the specified time, then the information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to other reviewers.