Submissions

Author Guidelines

1. Submission Process

Please create an account by registering in this journal as an author ( please do not forget to click on the Author box during registration!). Then, submit your paper.

Following the submission, Journal Management System will send a "Submission Acknowledgement" email. If you do not receive this email, please check your spam box and contact the editor at jurnal.of.mbs@gmail.com.

We accept manuscripts in the Bahasa & English language. 

1.1. Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

• The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
• The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
• Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
• The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
• The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the 2, which is found in About the Journal.
• If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed.
• Please ensure that all references should indicate their DOI numbers if available.

2. Review Process and Editorial Workflow

The Journal has a double-blind and open review system for the peer-review process; both reviewers' and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The manuscript will be peer-reviewed by two specialized scholars; two external reviewers and one editor from the journal involved in the reviewing process. The initial review is conducted by an associate editor. If the paper passes the initial review process, the paper will be assigned to 2 external reviewers.  

After evaluation, Editor-in-Chief proposes Editorial decisions for further actions including:

(a) which manuscript, if necessary, should be returned to the author with suggestions, comments, and recommendations for improvement, primarily methodological presentation of research materials,

(b) which manuscripts could be sent to the peer-review process,

(c) which manuscripts should be rejected because of the reasons as follows:

• The subject matter does not meet the required scientific level,
• An article with a similar topic has already been published by the same author;
• The subject matter does not meet the criteria of the Journal, especially if:
• the content is beyond the concept of scientific publishing orientation of the Journal (distinguished by the relevant databases) and does not meet international scientific and methodological standards that the Journal must comply with

If an article is not accepted, the Editorial Board sends a notification to the author, but the manuscript is not returned.

If the manuscript is improved adequately, it is sent to two reviewers for extramural review.

If the manuscript is considered for publishing, the authors will receive an “Editorial Decision” Email and an author verification email via ORCID to confirm the originality of the article and the validity of authorship.

In order to avoid withdrawing the paper until it is published or rejected, by signing the Authorship Statement, the authors assert compliance with the review process.

Reviewers stay anonymous for the authors and so do the authors for the reviewers. The reviewers are asked to apply the highest international standards in their assessment of the submitted work. Reviewers receive an article and a Reviewer Evaluation Form with instructions on how to fill it in. If the article does not fulfill the primary criteria of originality and relevance to the subject, it should not be accepted.

The categories in which articles, if judged positively, might be classified are:

An original scientific paper is a scientific paper that includes new results based on the research. The information given in the article can be verified by:

1. Reproducing methodological procedure and obtaining the same/similar results or with a tolerable degree of mistakes as estimated by the author himself;
2. Repeating the author’s observations and judging his analyses;
3. Checking the author’s analyses and deductions on which the author’s analyses are based.

Preliminary communication is an article that includes at least one or more pieces of scientific information but does not include the necessary details to check scientific cognition.

A conference paper is an article that deals with the author’s presentation at a conference and has not been previously published as a full text.

A review article is an article that analyzes a special scientific problem already dealt with in published scientific works, but his approach is original and new.

A professional paper is an article that deals with specific problems in some professional areas.

After receiving the reviews, the Editorial Board will give clear general instructions to the author for further work on the manuscript. The comments and suggestions made by the reviewers should be addressed and closely followed by the author prior to the final recommendation on acceptance or rejection made by the Editorial Board.

Only manuscripts with two positive reviews are published. After completion of peer review and amendment of the text of the accepted articles by the authors and editors, the Editor-in-chief, proposes the sequence of accepted papers in the table of contents.

Criteria for the order are:

(1) Categorization according to the degree of scientific excellence,

(2) In case of two different levels of categorization of a particular article by reviewers, Editor-in-Chief proposes a decision to the Editorial Board, and as a rule, in favor of the author, i.e. a higher category,

(3) Appreciation of topical issues, authors, and common interest of the Journal taking into account the competitiveness at the same level of scientific excellence (category).

3. Author Instructions

3.1. Article Type

Journal MBS requires authors to carefully select the appropriate article type for their manuscript and to comply with the article type descriptions defined in the journal’s "Article Types" page, which can be seen from the "For Authors" menu on any Journal MBS page. Please pay close attention to the word count limits.

3.2. Templates

If working with Word please use our Journal MBS Word Templates.

During the review, round authors are encouraged to upload versions using “Track Changes.” Editors and reviewers can only download the PDF file of the submitted manuscript.

3.3. Manuscript Length

Journal MBS encourages the authors to closely follow the article word count lengths given on the “Article Types” page of the journals. The manuscript length includes only the main body of the text, footnotes, and all citations within it, and excludes the abstract, section titles, figure and table captions, funding statement, acknowledgments, and references in the bibliography. Please indicate the number of words and the number of figures and tables included in your manuscript on the first page.

3.4. Language Editing

Journal MBS requires manuscripts submitted to meet international Bahasa & English language standards to be considered for publication.

For authors who would like their manuscript to receive language editing or proofreading to improve the clarity of the manuscript and help highlight their research, Journal MBS recommends external language-editing services.

3.5. Language Style

The default language style at Journal MBS is Bahasa & American English. If you prefer your article to be formatted in British English, please specify this on the first page of your manuscript. For any questions regarding style, Journal MBS recommends authors consult the Chicago Manual of Style.

3.6. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

There are a few simple ways to maximize your article’s discoverability. Follow the steps below to improve the search results of your article:

• include a few of your article's keywords in the title of the article;
• do not use long article titles;
• pick 5 to 8 keywords using a mix of generic and more specific terms on the article subject(s);
• use the maximum number of keywords in the first 2 sentences of the abstract;
• use some of the keywords in level 1 headings.

3.7. Title

The title should be concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript. Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.

Witty or creative titles are welcome, but only if relevant and within measure. Consider if a title meant to be thought-provoking might be misinterpreted as offensive or alarming. In extreme cases, the editorial office may veto a title and propose an alternative.

Authors should try to avoid, if possible:

• titles that are mere questions without giving the answer;
• unambitious titles, for example, starting with "Towards," "A description of," "A characterization of," "Preliminary study on;"
• vague titles, for example, starting with "Role of…," "Link between…," or "Effect of..." that do not specify the role, link, or effect;
• include terms that are out of place, for example, the taxonomic affiliation apart from species name.

For Corrigenda, General Commentaries, and Editorials, the title of your manuscript should have the following format:

• "Corrigendum: Title of Original Article"
• General Commentaries
• "Commentary: Title of Original Article"
• "Response: Commentary: Title of Original Article"
• "Editorial: Title of Research Topic"

The running title should be a maximum of 5 words in length.

3.8. Authors and Affiliations

All names are listed together and separated by commas. Provide exact and correct author names as these will be indexed in official archives. Affiliations should be keyed to the author's name with superscript numbers and be listed as follows: Laboratory, Institute, Department, Organization, City, State abbreviation (only for United States, Canada, and Australia), and Country (without detailed address information such as city zip codes or street names).

Example: Denn Clifton¹

¹ Department of Excellence, International University of Science, New York, NY, United States.

Correspondence:

The Corresponding Author(s) should be marked with an asterisk in the author list. Provide the exact contact email address of the corresponding author(s) in a separate section.

Example: Denn Clifton

dencliff@ihu.edu

If any authors wish to include a change of address, list the present address(es) below the correspondence details using a unique superscript symbol keyed to the author(s) in the author list.

Equal contributions:

The authors who have contributed equally should be marked with a symbol (†) in the author list of the doc/latex and pdf files of the manuscript uploaded at submission.

Standard statements to include in the author list:

Example: Den Clifton 1^†, John Smith2^† and Barbara Smith1

^†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

3.9. Consortium/Group and Collaborative Authors

Consortium/group authorship should be listed in the manuscript with the other author(s).

In cases where authorship is retained by the consortium/group, the consortium/group should be listed as an author separated by “,” or “and,”. The consortium/group name will appear in the author list, in the citation, and in the copyright. If provided, the consortium/group members will be listed in a separate section at the end of the article.

For the collaborators of the consortium/group to be indexed in PubMed, they do not have to be inserted in the Journal MBS submission system individually. However, in the manuscript itself, provide a section with the name of the consortium/group as the heading followed by the list of collaborators, so they can be tagged accordingly and indexed properly.

Example: John Smith, Barbara Smith, and The Collaborative Working Group.

In cases where work is presented by the author(s) on behalf of a consortium/group, it should be included in the author list separated by the wording “for” or “on behalf of.” The consortium/group will not retain authorship and will only appear in the author list.

Example: John Smith and Barbara Smith on behalf of The Collaborative Working Group.

3.10. Abstract

As a primary goal, the abstract should render the general significance and conceptual advance of the work clearly accessible to a broad readership. In the abstract, minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references, figures, or tables. Up to 100-250 words must contain:

• Research objective
• Method/Model/ Conception of analysis
• Main findings and results of research (analysis)
• The underlined conclusion of the research
• The abstract should not be written in paragraphs

3.11. Keywords

All article types require a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 8 keywords.

3.12. Text

The entire document should be single-spaced and must contain page and line numbers in order to facilitate the review process. The manuscript should be written using  Word.

1.13. Sections

The manuscript is organized by headings and subheadings. The section headings should be those appropriate for your field and the research itself. You may insert up to 5 heading levels into your manuscript (i.e., 3.2.2.1.2 Heading Title).

For Original Research Articles, it is recommended to organize your manuscript in the following sections or their equivalents for your field:

3.13.1 Introduction

Succinct, with no subheadings. Introduction – defines the problem and the subject matter of the research referring to recent bibliography and findings. However, these can more specifically be dealt with in the second section Literature review. The last part of the introduction is reserved for setting the hypothesis of the research that will be later on analyzed at the beginning of the conclusions. Finally, the Introduction ends up by giving clues about the organization of the text.

3.13.2 Literature Review

Theoretical and Conceptual Background should be efficiently discussed linking hypothesis with empirical reviews. Up-To-date top-class citations will improve the impact of research on readers.

3.13.3 Research and Methodology

This section may be divided by subheadings and should contain sufficient detail so that when read in conjunction with cited references, all procedures can be repeated. For experiments reporting results on animal or human subject research, an ethics approval statement should be included in this section. usually in the second section of the paper, the method/model/conception of the analysis should be transparently presented and pointed out in case of the research results are subjected to re-testing by interested researchers which is one of the fundamental principles of the scientific methodology).

3.13.4 Findings and Discussion

The findings section may be divided by subheadings. Footnotes should not be used and must be transferred to the main text.

The discussion section may be divided by subheadings. Discussions should cover the key findings of the study: discuss any prior research related to the subject to place the novelty of the discovery in the appropriate context, discuss the potential shortcomings and limitations on their interpretations, discuss their integration into the current understanding of the problem and how this advances the current views, speculate on the future direction of the research, and freely postulate theories that could be tested in the future.

For further information, please check the descriptions defined in the journal’s "Article Types" page, which can be seen from the "For Authors" menu on any Journal MBS journal page.

3.13.5 Conclusions

The conclusion section is not supposed to be a summary! Conclusions are the author’s original thoughts and evaluation of the obtained results including the items as follows:

• Explanation of the working hypothesis – proved or not proved;
• Assessment of the results of research/analysis with a focus on what can be classified
• as a new contribution to science;
• Attention is drawn to research limitations and problems;
• Guidelines for future research;
• Assessment of institutional-systemic implications of the results obtained by the
• research (suggestions and recommendations for changes in the economic system, economic and financial policy, development policy, instruments, measurements, or similar).

3.13.6 Acknowledgments

This is a short text to acknowledge the contributions of specific colleagues, institutions, or agencies that aided the efforts of the authors. Should the content of the manuscript have previously appeared online, such as in a thesis or preprint, this should be mentioned here, in addition to listing the source within the reference list.

3.13.7 Contribution to the Field Statement

When you submit your manuscript, you will be required to briefly summarize in 200 words your manuscript’s contribution to, and position in, the existing literature in your field. This should be written avoiding any technical language or non-standard acronyms. The aim should be to convey the meaning and importance of this research to a non-expert. While Journal MBS evaluates articles using objective criteria, rather than impact or novelty, your statement should frame the question(s) you have addressed in your work in the context of the current body of knowledge, providing evidence that the findings—whether positive or negative—contribute to progress in your research discipline. This will assist the Chief Editors to determine whether your manuscript fits within the scope of a specialty as defined in its mission statement; a detailed statement will also facilitate the identification of the editors and reviewers most appropriate to evaluate your work, ultimately expediting your manuscript's initial consideration.