Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

In order to maintain the quality of manuscripts and avoid publishing violations and plagiarism in the publishing process, the editorial board establishes scientific publication ethics. These publication ethics rules apply to authors, editors, reviewer partners, and journal managers. The publication ethic refers to the provisions of scientific publication ethics by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Author Ethics

  1. Reporting; The author must provide information about the process and results of his research to the editors in an honest, clear, and thorough manner, and keep his research data properly and safely stored.
  2. Originality and plagiarism; the author must ensure that the manuscript that has been sent/submitted to the editor is an original manuscript, written by himself, sourced from his ideas and ideas, and not plagiarizing other people's writings or ideas. Authors are strictly prohibited from changing the names of sources cited to other people's names.
  3. Repeat delivery; The author must inform that the manuscript sent/submitted to the editor is a manuscript that has never been submitted/submitted to another journal/publication publisher. If redundancies are found in sending manuscripts to other publishers, the editor will reject the manuscript sent by the author.
  4. Author status; the author must inform the editor that the writer has competence or qualifications in a certain field of expertise that is in accordance with the field of published science. The author who sends the manuscript to the editor (corresponding author) is the first author so that if problems are found in the process of publishing the manuscript, it can be resolved immediately.
  5. Errors in script writing; The author must immediately inform the editor if an error is found in writing the manuscript, both the results of the review and the edits. These writing errors include writing names, affiliations/agencies, quotations, and other writings that can reduce the meaning and substance of the text. If that happens, the author must immediately propose improvements to the manuscript.
  6. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; the author must understand the ethics of scientific publication above to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties, so that manuscripts can be processed smoothly and safely.

 

Editorial Ethics

  1. Publication decision; the editor must ensure that the manuscript review process is thorough, transparent, objective, fair, and thoughtful. This becomes the basis of the editor in making a decision on a manuscript, whether it is rejected or accepted. In this case, the editorial board acts as a manuscript selection team.
  2. Publication information; The editor must ensure that guidelines for writing manuscripts for authors and other interested parties can be accessed and read clearly, both in print and electronic versions.
  3. Distribution of peer-reviewed manuscripts; the editor must ensure the reviewer and the manuscript material for review, as well as clearly inform the provisions and process for reviewing the manuscript to the reviewer.
  4. Objectivity and neutrality; Editors must be objective, neutral, and honest in editing manuscripts, regardless of gender, business side, ethnicity, religion, race, inter-group, and nationality of the author.
  5. confidentiality; the editor must take good care of any information, especially related to the privacy of the author and the distribution of the manuscript.
  6. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; the editor must understand the ethics of scientific publication above to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties, so that the manuscript publishing process runs smoothly and safely.

 

Reviewer Ethics

  1. Objectivity and neutrality; reviewers must be honest, objective, unbiased, independent, and only side with scientific truth. The process of reviewing the manuscript is carried out professionally without distinguishing gender, business side, ethnicity, religion, race, inter-group, and the author's nationality.
  2. Clarity of reference sources; the reviewer must ensure that the source of references/quotes from the manuscript is appropriate and credible (accountable). If an error or deviation is found in writing a reference/citation source, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor for corrections to be made by the author according to the notes from the reviewer.
  3. Peer-reviewed effectiveness; the reviewer must respond to the manuscript that has been sent by the editor and work according to the established peer-review time (maximum 2 weeks). If you need additional time in reviewing the manuscript, you must immediately report (confirm) to the editorial secretariat.
  4. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; reviewers must understand the ethics of scientific publication above to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties, so that the manuscript publishing process runs smoothly and safely.

 

Journal Management Ethics

  1. Decision-making; the journal manager/editor's board must describe the mission and goals of the organization, especially those relating to the establishment of policies and decisions to publish journals without any particular interest.
  2. Freedom; Journal managers must give freedom to reviewers and editors to create a comfortable working atmosphere and respect the author's privacy.
  3. Guarantees and promotions; Journal managers must guarantee and protect intellectual property rights (copyright), and be transparent in managing funds received by third parties. In addition, journal managers must publish and promote published results to the public by guaranteeing the benefits of using the manuscript.
  4. Disclosure of conflicts of interest; Journal managers must understand the ethics of scientific publication above to avoid conflicts of interest with other parties, so that the manuscript publishing process runs smoothly and safely.