JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy, published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia, is committed to publishing research assessed on scholarly merit, methodological quality, and relevance to Islamic economics, finance, ethical enterprise, and sustainable economic development. The journal requires responsible disclosure and management of financial and non-financial interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, research integrity or editorial independence.

This policy applies to authors, peer reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, journal managers, editorial staff, and relevant representatives of the publisher. It operates alongside JOVISHE’s Publication Ethics, Authorship Criteria, Peer Review Process, Reviewers’ Guidelines, Research Misconduct, and Author Fees policies. Its framework is informed by COPE, the COPE–DOAJ–OASPA–WAME transparency principles, ICMJE guidance on competing interests, and Indonesia’s 2026 scientific-journal accreditation technical guidelines.

A conflict of interest (also called a competing interest) arises when a secondary relationship, commitment, or benefit could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, professional judgment about a primary scholarly responsibility. Such interests may exist during study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial assessment, publication, and subsequent commentary.

JOVISHE considers actual, potential, and perceived conflicts. An individual need not believe that they have acted with bias for disclosure to be warranted. The appropriate test is whether a reasonable reader, reviewer, or editor could consider the relationship relevant to the work or the decision being made. Information is evaluated proportionately and with due regard for confidentiality.

Every listed author is individually responsible for disclosing relevant financial and non-financial relationships. The corresponding author coordinates the collection of accurate declarations from all co-authors, ensures that disclosures are complete at submission, and reconfirms them before acceptance and publication.

• Declare relevant interests at submission. Include the nature of the relationship, the organisation or individual concerned, and its relevance to the research, including any influence on decisions, methods, data, interpretation, or publication.
• Update declarations without delay. Inform the editorial office if new circumstances emerge, a previously undisclosed interest is discovered, or the relevance of an existing relationship changes during review or production.
• Disclose sponsor involvement. State whether funders, research partners, commercial clients, or affiliated institutions had a role in study design, data access, data analysis, interpretation, writing, or decisions to submit and publish.
• Preserve research independence. Do not enter into agreements that prevent independent analysis, accurate reporting, appropriate access to research evidence, or submission of findings because they are unfavourable to a sponsor.
• Provide a final Competing Interests Statement. The declaration must be agreed to by all authors and incorporated into the final manuscript or publication metadata as required by the editorial office.
• Do not use the blinded reviewer file for identifying disclosures. During double-anonymous review, submit identity-revealing information through confidential submission metadata, a separate declaration document, or editorial correspondence.

Where a submitted study evaluates an Islamic financial institution, microfinance platform, halal enterprise, waqf programme, local business, or other organisation with which an author has a material relationship, the relationship should be described with sufficient specificity to allow editorial assessment. A disclosure may be requested even when the author considers the findings independent.

Funding statements and competing-interest statements serve different purposes and should not be conflated. The funding statement identifies financial or in-kind support directly associated with the research and describes the funder’s role. The competing-interest statement discloses relationships or commitments that could influence, or appear to influence, the work—including interests that are not direct sources of study funding.

• Identify funders, sponsors, grant numbers where available, and relevant in-kind or institutional support in a dedicated Funding Statement.
• Explain any role of a sponsor in research design, sampling, data access, fieldwork, data analysis, manuscript drafting, interpretation, or the decision to publish; state when the sponsor had no such role.
• Describe material employment, consultancy, advisory, ownership, or intellectual-property relationships separately in the Competing Interests Statement, even where no direct project funding was received.
• Disclose relevant institutional or commercial restrictions on data access and publication where those restrictions could affect independent verification or interpretation.

Before accepting an invitation, each reviewer must assess whether their expertise and relationships permit an impartial, independent review. Conflicts must be disclosed promptly to the handling editor; disclosure is also required if a new concern arises after the review has begun or an author’s identity becomes known during double-anonymous review.

• Decline or request recusal where a material conflict arises from close personal relationships, current shared institutional affiliation, recent substantive collaboration, supervisory relationships, direct financial interests, or strong professional rivalry.
• Consult the handling editor where the relevance or severity of an interest is uncertain; do not conceal a relationship because the reviewer believes they can remain objective.
• Do not use confidential manuscripts, unpublished findings, proprietary data, or ideas for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage.
• Do not request self-serving citations or favour sources for the purpose of benefiting a reviewer, colleague, journal, or organisation; suggested references must be scientifically justified.
• Do not directly contact authors about a manuscript under review or attempt to discover their identity; conflict disclosures and integrity concerns must be communicated to the editorial office.

The Editor-in-Chief, handling editors, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, and editorial staff are expected to disclose relevant interests before taking part in an editorial assignment. An editor with a material actual, potential, or perceived conflict must withdraw from the affected review and decision-making process.

• Recusal from affected manuscripts. An editor must not select reviewers, supervise review, influence the outcome, or make the final decision when they are an author, recent close collaborator, supervisor, family member, direct competitor with a material conflict, or otherwise in a relationship that creates a substantial risk of bias.
• Independent handling of editor-authored work. Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, or another person with a relevant editorial relationship must be assigned to a qualified, non-conflicted editor who can oversee independent reviewer selection and the editorial decision under arrangements approved by the journal.
• Conflict involving the Editor-in-Chief. A designated non-conflicted editor must assume decision-making responsibility for the affected manuscript; the Editor-in-Chief must not participate in or privately influence that decision.
• Transparent handling of institutional overlap. Shared affiliations, supervisory ties, co-authorship relationships, or direct organisational commitments should be assessed and managed rather than treated as automatically acceptable.
• Protection of confidential information. Editorial personnel must not use unpublished manuscripts or privileged correspondence for personal gain, competitive advantage, or the benefit of an institution or sponsor.

Editors should retain an appropriate, access-controlled record of disclosures, recusals, changes in handling editor, reviewer assignments, and the reasoning behind the final editorial outcome. The reviewer’s recommendation remains advisory; an independent editor must take responsibility for an appropriately supported final decision.

Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation) supports JOVISHE’s editorial infrastructure and governance while respecting the scholarly independence of editorial judgments. The publisher, Journal Manager, and administrative personnel must not exercise financial, institutional, or personal influence over reviewer selection, the content of reviews, or final editorial decisions.

• Financial separation. Article review charges, publication charges (if applicable), payments, discounts, or waivers must not affect desk screening, assignment, acceptance, rejection, revision requirements, or issue placement. Details of fees are governed by the separate Author Fees page.
• Sponsorship separation. Funding partners, advertisers, donors, affiliated institutions, and business partners may not require favourable coverage or determine the publication of research concerning their interests.
• Governance accountability. Concerns involving the publisher or journal management must be reviewed by an appropriate individual with no material conflict in the matter; persons whose conduct is questioned must not control the assessment.
• No preferential access. Editorial standing, institutional affiliation, board membership, personal acquaintance, ability to pay, and employment by the publisher must not secure an advantage in assessment or publication.

JOVISHE uses a two-stage submission route: preliminary registration through the Makwa Foundation submission portal, followed by formal manuscript submission and editorial assessment in OJS where instructed. Disclosure information should be collected at the earliest appropriate point and confirmed with the complete manuscript record.

Authors should supply identifying disclosures through the designated metadata fields, confidential accompanying documentation, or communication to the editorial office. The manuscript version provided for double-anonymous review should not contain names, institutional details, or disclosures that unnecessarily reveal author identity. The handling editor may have access to unblinded information for conflict screening while reviewers receive only information appropriate to a fair assessment.

Authors and editorial participants must not manipulate author identities or affiliations to evade conflict checks. The final published article should contain the authorised declaration, even though identifying information was withheld from the review manuscript.

Every accepted research article should contain a clearly labelled Competing Interests or Conflict of Interest statement, including when no relevant conflicts exist. Declarations should be specific, factual, and approved by all authors. The illustrative wording below may be adapted as appropriate to the actual circumstances.

If a potential conflict is discovered after a manuscript has been accepted or an article published, the editorial office will assess whether information was omitted, whether the omission was material, and whether it influenced research findings, peer review, editorial handling, or the reliability of the published record. Authors and other relevant parties are invited to provide an explanation and supporting information.

• Disclosure clarification. Where an omission is not material to the research or decision, the editorial office may request an updated declaration or issue a clarification as appropriate.
• Correction. If a material interest was omitted but the article’s findings remain reliable, the journal may publish a linked correction to the Competing Interests or Funding statement.
• Independent reassessment. If undisclosed interests may have compromised review or editorial decisions, the journal may commission a fresh independent evaluation, seek expert advice, or consult the relevant institution.
• Editorial notice or retraction. When credible concerns remain unresolved, an expression of concern may be considered; when serious defects invalidate the work or publication integrity is substantially compromised, retraction may be appropriate in accordance with JOVISHE’s publication-ethics procedures.
• Communication. Substantiated outcomes and necessary corrections to the public record should be communicated appropriately to affected parties and readers.

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other concerned individuals may report a suspected undisclosed interest or compromised editorial process through JOVISHE’s official Contact page. Reports should identify the relevant manuscript or article, describe the relationship of concern, and include supporting information where reasonably available. The journal will not treat a concern as proven solely because an allegation has been made.

Complaints are handled with appropriate confidentiality, neutrality, and an opportunity for the affected person to respond. If a complaint concerns the handling editor, it should be assigned to a different, non-conflicted editor. If it concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the publisher should facilitate consideration by an independent and qualified individual who has no relevant connection to the case. Where a matter concerns publisher personnel, an equally independent arrangement is required.

A party directly affected by a determination may submit a reasoned appeal identifying a significant factual error, a procedural irregularity, or credible new evidence. Where practicable, the appeal should be reviewed by someone not involved in the original determination. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the editorial outcome.

The editorial office should preserve appropriately restricted records of competing-interest disclosures, correspondence, conflict evaluations, recusals, reassigned editorial responsibilities, reviewer replacement, funding explanations, approval of final statements, and relevant post-publication action. Access should be limited to persons with legitimate editorial, integrity, or authorised audit responsibilities.

Confidential and sensitive material should not be disclosed publicly beyond what is necessary for meaningful transparency. Personal information irrelevant to assessing the published research must be handled under the journal’s privacy and data-protection obligations. Manuscript histories and OJS records must reflect actions and dates as they actually occurred; disclosures and mitigation records must not be fabricated or retrospectively presented as contemporaneous.

This policy is to be interpreted together with JOVISHE’s other editorial policies. Where a case raises a question not addressed here, the journal may consult current COPE resources, applicable institutional procedures, and relevant Indonesian requirements while maintaining independent scholarly judgment.