Focus and Scope

The Research in Physics Education (RiPE) is firmly established as an authoritative voice in the world of physics education. RiPE publishes scholarly papers that focus on the teaching and learning of physics in school settings ranging from primary education to university education. It bridges the gap between research and practice, providing information, ideas, and opinion. As a truly international journal, RiPE welcomes contributions from any country provided that the authors explain their local contexts and demonstrate the significance of their work to a global readership. Special emphasis is placed on applicable research relevant to educational practice, guided by educational realities in systems, schools, colleges, and universities. The journal publishes papers in several categories, as outlined below. From time to time, a special issue, guest-edited by one or several acknowledged experts, is devoted to a topic of major interest and importance.

RiPE is concerned with physics education but also welcomes manuscripts on the integration of physics education with other disciplines, in particular, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) or, and the arts. Submissions that are concerned with physics (as distinct from physics education) or with general educational matters will not be considered for publication. Authors with any questions about the likely acceptability of a paper are invited to contact the Editor-in-Chief before making a submission. RiPE carries the following types of articles:

• Empirical research papers: These are accounts of empirical investigations that are theory-based and embedded in a critical review of relevant literature. Manuscripts should include an account of the methodology and procedures used, explain the analysis carried out and the conclusions reached, draw implications for educational theory and practice, and point to possible future research.
• Theoretical papers: These discuss the nature and academic standing of theories about research into and the practice of physics education. Theoretical papers can be written from a particular historical or philosophical perspective. Critical reviews and analyses of the research literature about a certain topic or theme fall into this category.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

RiPE is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double anonymous peer reviewed by independent expert referees. If you have shared an earlier version of your Author’s Original Manuscript on a preprint server, please be aware that anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Further information on our preprints policy and citation requirements can be found on in the journal page. Find out more about what to expect during peer review  and read our guidance on publishing ethics. In addition, the journal is taking part in a STM organization pilot to improve consistency of definitions and terminology in peer review practices across publishers. The pilot also aims to help make the peer review process for articles and journals more transparent.

The following summary describes the peer review process for this journal:

• Identity transparency: double anonymized
• Reviewer interacts with: Editor
• Review information published: none 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics

RiPE is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including the author, the chief editor, the editorial board, the peer-reviewer,­ and the publisher (Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed RiPE journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society. 

Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut as publisher of RiPE Journal takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

llegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing the article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the RiPE Journal journal will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions

The editor of the RiPE Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.

Complaints and Appeals

The RiPE Journal will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to respected personal concerning the case of a complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Standards of Objectivity-Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources-Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that 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.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting standards-Authors of reports of original research 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 behavior and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention-Authors are 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, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.

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.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication-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. Acknowledgment 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 and Contributorship of the Article

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 in 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 conflicts 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 work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Ethical Oversight

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal, and ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Screening for Plagiarism

1. Manuscript submitted to RiPEJournal will be screened for plagiarism using Turnitin plagiarism detection tool. RiPEJournal will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. RiPEJournal wants to ensure that all authors are careful and comply with international standards for academic integrity, particularly on the issue of plagiarism. Plagiarism occurs when an author takes ideas, information, or words from another source without proper credit to the source. Even when it occurs unintentionally, plagiarism is still a serious academic violation and unacceptable in international academic publications.
2. When the author learns specific information (a name, date, place, statistical number, or other detailed information) from a specific source, a citation is required. (This is only forgiven in cases of general knowledge, where the data is readily available in more than five sources or is common knowledge, e.g., the fact that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world.)
3. When the author takes an idea from another author, a citation is required even if the author then develops the idea further. This might be an idea about how to interpret the data, either what methodology to use or what conclusion to draw. It might be an idea about broad developments in a field or general information. Regardless of the idea, authors should cite their sources. In cases where the author develops the idea further, it is still necessary to cite the original source of the idea, and then in a subsequent sentence, the author can explain her or his more developed idea.
4. When the author takes words from another author, a citation and quotation marks are required. Whenever four or more consecutive words are identical to a source that the author has read, the author must use quotation marks to denote the use of another author's original words; just a citation is no longer enough.
5. RiPEJournal takes academic integrity very seriously, and the editors reserve the right to withdraw acceptance from a paper found to violate any of the standards set out above. For further information, potential authors can contact the editorial office at ripe@institutpendidikan.ac.id