Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on COPEs Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. As such, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for full details.

Duties of Editors

Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, studys validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journals scope, without regard to the authors race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication Decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewers own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewers personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript) disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journals editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

The publisher ensures academic integrity and handles misconduct according to COPE guidelines.

Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

Section A: Publication and authorship

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review process are blind peer review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

Sources:

Pernyataan Etika Publikasi

Pernyataan Etika Publikasi dan Malpraktik Publikasi kami disusun berdasarkan Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors dari Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Oleh karena itu, jurnal ini mengacu pada COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors serta Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers yang ditetapkan oleh COPE.

Beberapa poin utama disajikan di bawah ini, namun untuk memperoleh penjelasan yang komprehensif, pembaca disarankan untuk merujuk langsung pada ketiga dokumen tersebut.

Peran Editor

Keadilan dan independensi editorial
Editor mengevaluasi naskah yang diajukan semata-mata berdasarkan nilai akademik, meliputi tingkat kepentingan, orisinalitas, validitas studi, serta kejelasan, dan kesesuaiannya dengan ruang lingkup jurnal, tanpa mempertimbangkan ras, jenis kelamin, orientasi seksual, asal etnis, kewarganegaraan, keyakinan agama, pandangan politik, maupun afiliasi institusional penulis. Keputusan penyuntingan dan publikasi tidak dipengaruhi oleh kebijakan pemerintah atau lembaga lain di luar jurnal. Editor-in-Chief memiliki kewenangan penuh atas seluruh konten editorial jurnal serta penentuan waktu publikasinya.

Kerahasiaan
Editor dan staf editorial tidak akan mengungkapkan informasi apa pun terkait naskah yang diajukan kepada pihak selain penulis korespondensi, reviewer, calon reviewer, penasihat editorial lainnya, dan penerbit, sesuai dengan kebutuhan.

Pengungkapan dan konflik kepentingan
Editor dan anggota dewan editorial tidak diperkenankan menggunakan informasi yang belum dipublikasikan dalam naskah yang diajukan untuk kepentingan penelitian pribadi tanpa persetujuan tertulis yang jelas dari penulis. Informasi atau gagasan istimewa yang diperoleh selama proses penanganan naskah harus dijaga kerahasiaannya dan tidak digunakan untuk keuntungan pribadi. Editor wajib mengundurkan diri dari proses penilaian naskah apabila terdapat konflik kepentingan yang timbul dari hubungan kompetitif, kolaboratif, atau hubungan lain dengan penulis, perusahaan, atau institusi yang terkait dengan naskah tersebut, dan selanjutnya menyerahkan penanganan naskah kepada anggota dewan editorial lainnya.

Keputusan publikasi
Editor memastikan bahwa setiap naskah yang diajukan untuk dipertimbangkan publikasinya telah melalui proses peer-review oleh sekurang-kurangnya dua reviewer yang kompeten di bidangnya. Editor-in-Chief bertanggung jawab dalam menentukan naskah yang layak dipublikasikan berdasarkan validitas karya, kontribusinya bagi peneliti dan pembaca, hasil telaah reviewer, serta ketentuan hukum yang berlaku terkait pencemaran nama baik, pelanggaran hak cipta, dan plagiarisme. Dalam proses pengambilan keputusan tersebut, Editor-in-Chief dapat berkonsultasi dengan editor lain atau reviewer.

Keterlibatan dan kerja sama dalam investigasi
Editor (bersama penerbit dan/atau asosiasi terkait) akan mengambil langkah yang responsif apabila terdapat isu etika yang berkaitan dengan naskah yang diajukan atau artikel yang telah dipublikasikan. Setiap dugaan pelanggaran etika publikasi akan ditindaklanjuti, termasuk apabila ditemukan setelah bertahun-tahun sejak publikasi. Editor mengikuti panduan flowcharts dari Committee on Publication Ethics dalam menangani dugaan pelanggaran. Apabila hasil investigasi menunjukkan bahwa permasalahan etika tersebut terbukti, maka jurnal akan menerbitkan koreksi, pencabutan (retraction), pernyataan keprihatinan, atau bentuk pemberitahuan lain yang relevan.

Peran Reviewer

Kontribusi terhadap keputusan editorial
Proses peer review membantu editor dalam mengambil keputusan editorial dan, melalui komunikasi editorial dengan penulis, dapat membantu penulis dalam meningkatkan kualitas naskah. Peer review merupakan komponen esensial dalam komunikasi ilmiah formal dan menjadi inti dari pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan. Jurnal ini sejalan dengan pandangan bahwa setiap akademisi yang berkontribusi dalam proses ilmiah memiliki kewajiban untuk turut serta secara proporsional dalam kegiatan penelaahan (review).

Ketepatan waktu
Reviewer yang diundang dan merasa tidak memiliki kompetensi yang memadai untuk menelaah naskah, atau mengetahui bahwa proses penelaahan tidak dapat diselesaikan secara tepat waktu, harus segera memberitahukan editor dan menolak undangan tersebut, sehingga editor dapat menghubungi reviewer alternatif.

Kerahasiaan
Setiap naskah yang diterima untuk ditelaah merupakan dokumen rahasia dan harus diperlakukan demikian. Naskah tidak boleh diperlihatkan atau didiskusikan dengan pihak lain tanpa izin dari Editor-in-Chief, yang hanya diberikan dalam kondisi khusus dan terbatas. Ketentuan ini juga berlaku bagi reviewer yang menolak undangan penelaahan.

Standar objektivitas
Penelaahan harus dilakukan secara objektif, dan setiap penilaian disampaikan secara jelas disertai dengan argumentasi yang mendukung, sehingga dapat digunakan oleh penulis untuk memperbaiki naskah. Kritik yang bersifat personal terhadap penulis tidak diperkenankan.

Pengakuan sumber
Reviewer diharapkan mengidentifikasi karya ilmiah relevan yang belum disitasi oleh penulis. Setiap pernyataan yang berupa observasi, derivasi, atau argumen yang telah dilaporkan dalam publikasi sebelumnya harus disertai dengan sitasi yang sesuai. Selain itu, reviewer wajib memberitahukan editor apabila terdapat kemiripan atau tumpang tindih substansial antara naskah yang sedang ditelaah dengan karya lain (baik yang telah dipublikasikan maupun belum) yang diketahui oleh reviewer.

Pengungkapan dan konflik kepentingan
Reviewer yang memiliki konflik kepentingan akibat hubungan kompetitif, kolaboratif, atau hubungan lainnya dengan penulis, perusahaan, atau institusi yang terkait dengan naskah, harus segera memberitahukan editor dan menolak undangan penelaahan, sehingga dapat ditunjuk reviewer pengganti.

Materi yang belum dipublikasikan yang terdapat dalam naskah tidak boleh digunakan dalam penelitian pribadi reviewer tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari penulis. Informasi atau gagasan istimewa yang diperoleh melalui proses peer review harus dijaga kerahasiaannya dan tidak digunakan untuk keuntungan pribadi. Ketentuan ini juga berlaku bagi reviewer yang menolak undangan penelaahan.

Peran Penulis

Standar pelaporan
Penulis artikel penelitian asli harus menyajikan laporan yang akurat mengenai pekerjaan yang dilakukan beserta hasil yang diperoleh, diikuti dengan pembahasan yang objektif mengenai signifikansi penelitian tersebut. Naskah harus memuat rincian dan referensi yang memadai agar penelitian dapat direplikasi oleh peneliti lain. Artikel tinjauan (review) harus disusun secara akurat, objektif, dan komprehensif, sedangkan artikel opini atau perspektif editorial harus diidentifikasi secara jelas. Pernyataan yang bersifat tidak jujur atau secara sadar tidak akurat merupakan bentuk perilaku tidak etis dan tidak dapat diterima.

Akses dan retensi data
Penulis dapat diminta untuk menyediakan data mentah penelitian sebagai bagian dari proses penelaahan editorial, serta diharapkan bersedia menyediakan data tersebut secara terbuka apabila memungkinkan. Penulis juga harus menjamin bahwa data tetap dapat diakses oleh profesional yang kompeten setidaknya selama 10 tahun setelah publikasi, dengan tetap menjaga kerahasiaan partisipan serta memperhatikan ketentuan hukum terkait kepemilikan data.

Orisinalitas dan plagiarisme
Penulis wajib memastikan bahwa karya yang disusun dan dikirimkan merupakan karya asli, serta setiap penggunaan karya atau kata-kata pihak lain telah disitasi secara tepat. Publikasi yang berpengaruh terhadap penelitian yang dilaporkan juga harus dicantumkan. Plagiarisme dalam berbagai bentuk, termasuk pengakuan karya orang lain sebagai milik sendiri, penyalinan tanpa atribusi, atau klaim atas hasil penelitian pihak lain, merupakan pelanggaran etika publikasi dan tidak dapat diterima.

Publikasi ganda, duplikasi, atau simultan
Naskah yang menggambarkan penelitian yang sama tidak boleh dipublikasikan di lebih dari satu jurnal. Oleh karena itu, penulis tidak diperkenankan mengirimkan naskah yang telah dipublikasikan sebelumnya atau mengirimkan naskah yang sama ke lebih dari satu jurnal secara bersamaan. Publikasi sekunder (misalnya pedoman klinis atau terjemahan) dimungkinkan dengan syarat adanya persetujuan dari semua pihak terkait dan tetap mencantumkan referensi publikasi utama.

Kepengarangan naskah
Hanya individu yang memenuhi kriteria kepengarangan yang dapat dicantumkan sebagai penulis, yaitu mereka yang berkontribusi signifikan terhadap perancangan, pelaksanaan, pengumpulan data, atau analisis penelitian; terlibat dalam penyusunan atau revisi substansi ilmiah; serta menyetujui versi akhir naskah dan publikasinya. Pihak yang berkontribusi namun tidak memenuhi kriteria kepengarangan harus dicantumkan dalam bagian ucapan terima kasih dengan persetujuan tertulis. Penulis korespondensi bertanggung jawab memastikan keakuratan daftar penulis dan persetujuan semua pihak.

Pengungkapan dan konflik kepentingan
Penulis wajib mengungkapkan potensi konflik kepentingan sejak awal proses pengajuan, baik yang bersifat finansial maupun non-finansial, yang dapat memengaruhi hasil atau interpretasi penelitian. Seluruh sumber pendanaan penelitian harus dinyatakan secara transparan.

Pengakuan sumber
Penulis harus memberikan pengakuan yang tepat terhadap kontribusi pihak lain dan menyitasi sumber yang relevan. Informasi yang diperoleh secara pribadi tidak boleh digunakan tanpa izin tertulis dari sumbernya. Demikian pula, informasi yang diperoleh melalui layanan rahasia tidak boleh digunakan tanpa persetujuan pihak terkait.

Bahaya serta subjek manusia atau hewan
Apabila penelitian melibatkan bahan, prosedur, atau peralatan yang berisiko, penulis harus menjelaskannya secara jelas dalam naskah. Penelitian yang melibatkan manusia atau hewan harus mematuhi peraturan hukum dan pedoman institusional yang berlaku serta memperoleh persetujuan etik dari komite terkait. Penulis juga wajib menyatakan bahwa persetujuan (informed consent) telah diperoleh dari partisipan manusia, serta menjamin perlindungan privasi mereka.

Proses peer review
Penulis berkewajiban berpartisipasi dalam proses peer review dengan memberikan tanggapan secara tepat waktu terhadap permintaan editor, termasuk penyediaan data, klarifikasi, dan bukti persetujuan etik. Apabila diperlukan revisi, penulis harus menanggapi komentar reviewer secara sistematis dan menyerahkan kembali naskah sesuai batas waktu yang ditetapkan.

Kesalahan mendasar dalam karya yang telah dipublikasikan
Apabila penulis menemukan kesalahan signifikan dalam karya yang telah dipublikasikan, penulis wajib segera memberitahukan editor atau penerbit dan bekerja sama untuk melakukan koreksi atau pencabutan artikel. Jika kesalahan tersebut dilaporkan oleh pihak ketiga, penulis juga berkewajiban untuk memberikan klarifikasi atau melakukan perbaikan yang diperlukan

Peran Penerbit

Penanganan perilaku publikasi tidak etis
Dalam kasus dugaan atau terbuktinya pelanggaran etika ilmiah, publikasi yang bersifat curang, atau plagiarisme, penerbit, bekerja sama secara erat dengan editor, akan mengambil langkah-langkah yang diperlukan untuk mengklarifikasi permasalahan serta memperbaiki artikel yang bersangkutan. Tindakan tersebut mencakup publikasi erratum, klarifikasi, atau dalam kasus yang paling serius, pencabutan (retraction) artikel. Penerbit bersama editor juga berkewajiban mengambil langkah yang wajar untuk mengidentifikasi dan mencegah publikasi karya yang mengandung pelanggaran etika penelitian, serta tidak akan dalam keadaan apa pun mendorong atau secara sadar membiarkan terjadinya pelanggaran tersebut.

Akses terhadap konten jurnal
Penerbit berkomitmen untuk menjamin ketersediaan dan pelestarian jangka panjang terhadap hasil penelitian ilmiah. Komitmen ini diwujudkan melalui kerja sama dengan berbagai organisasi terkait serta pemeliharaan arsip digital secara mandiri guna memastikan aksesibilitas konten jurnal secara berkelanjutan.

Section A: Publikasi dan Kepengarangan
  1. Semua naskah yang dikirimkan akan melalui proses peer review ketat oleh minimal dua reviewer internasional yang ahli di bidangnya.
  2. Proses penelaahan menggunakan sistem blind peer review.
  3. Penilaian didasarkan pada relevansi, validitas ilmiah, signifikansi, orisinalitas, keterbacaan, dan kualitas bahasa.
  4. Keputusan akhir dapat berupa diterima, diterima dengan revisi, atau ditolak.
  5. Revisi dan pengajuan ulang tidak menjamin naskah akan diterima.
  6. Naskah yang ditolak tidak akan ditelaah ulang.
  7. Penerimaan artikel harus memenuhi ketentuan hukum yang berlaku terkait pencemaran nama baik, pelanggaran hak cipta, dan plagiarisme.
  8. Satu penelitian tidak boleh dipublikasikan dalam lebih dari satu publikasi.
Section B: Tanggung Jawab Penulis
  1. Penulis harus menjamin bahwa naskah merupakan karya asli.
  2. Penulis harus memastikan bahwa naskah belum pernah dipublikasikan sebelumnya.
  3. Penulis harus memastikan bahwa naskah tidak sedang dipertimbangkan di jurnal lain.
  4. Penulis wajib berpartisipasi dalam proses peer review.
  5. Penulis berkewajiban melakukan koreksi atau pencabutan (retraction) jika terdapat kesalahan.
  6. Semua penulis yang tercantum harus memiliki kontribusi signifikan dalam penelitian.
  7. Penulis harus menyatakan bahwa seluruh data yang disajikan adalah valid dan autentik.
  8. Penulis wajib mengungkapkan konflik kepentingan kepada editor.
  9. Penulis harus mencantumkan semua sumber yang digunakan dalam penyusunan naskah.
  10. Penulis wajib melaporkan kesalahan yang ditemukan setelah publikasi kepada editor.
Section C: Tanggung Jawab Reviewer
  1. Reviewer harus menjaga kerahasiaan seluruh informasi dalam naskah.
  2. Penelaahan harus dilakukan secara objektif tanpa kritik personal terhadap penulis.
  3. Reviewer harus menyampaikan penilaian secara jelas disertai argumen pendukung.
  4. Reviewer harus mengidentifikasi referensi relevan yang belum disitasi oleh penulis.
  5. Reviewer harus melaporkan kepada Editor-in-Chief apabila terdapat kemiripan substansial dengan publikasi lain.
  6. Reviewer tidak boleh menelaah naskah yang memiliki konflik kepentingan dengan penulis atau institusi terkait.
Section D: Tanggung Jawab Editor
  1. Editor memiliki kewenangan penuh untuk menerima atau menolak naskah.
  2. Editor bertanggung jawab atas isi dan kualitas keseluruhan publikasi.
  3. Editor harus mempertimbangkan kebutuhan penulis dan pembaca dalam meningkatkan kualitas publikasi.
  4. Editor menjamin mutu artikel dan integritas rekam jejak akademik.
  5. Editor wajib menerbitkan koreksi (erratum) apabila diperlukan.
  6. Editor harus memahami sumber pendanaan penelitian yang dilaporkan.
  7. Keputusan editorial harus didasarkan pada kepentingan ilmiah, orisinalitas, kejelasan, dan relevansi dengan ruang lingkup jurnal.
  8. Editor tidak boleh mengubah keputusan sebelumnya tanpa alasan yang kuat.
  9. Editor wajib menjaga anonimitas reviewer.
  10. Editor memastikan bahwa seluruh penelitian mematuhi standar etika internasional.
  11. Editor hanya menerima naskah jika telah memiliki keyakinan yang memadai terhadap kualitasnya.
  12. Editor harus bertindak apabila terdapat dugaan pelanggaran etika, baik sebelum maupun setelah publikasi.
  13. Editor tidak boleh menolak naskah hanya berdasarkan kecurigaan tanpa bukti yang jelas.
  14. Editor harus mencegah konflik kepentingan antara staf, penulis, reviewer, dan anggota dewan editorial.

Sources: