Publication Ethic

The ethical publication code statement is based on LIPI Regulation Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Ethics of the Scientific Publication Code, which upholds 3 ethical values in publication, namely: (i) neutrality, free from conflicts of interest in the processing of publications; (ii) fairness, giving rights to authors to claim their papers; and (iii) Honesty, free from duplication, fabrication, forgery, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications. This publication's Ethics have also been adjusted to COPE.

After reading this Scientific Publication Ethics Statement, please download the Statement of Ethics. Please sign and submit the Statement of Ethics as part of the initial submission of your article.

Publication and Writing

    1. All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer-review process by at least two reviewers who are experts in the paper's particular field
    2. The review process is a blind peer review.
    3. Factors considered in reviews are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
    4. Possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revision, or rejection.
    5. If the author is encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
    6. Rejected articles will not be reviewed.
    7. Acceptance of papers is limited by legal requirements that will apply regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
    8. No research may be included in more than one publication.

Editor's Responsibility

    1. The editor has full responsibility and authority to reject or accept articles.
    2. The editor is responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication.
    3. Editors should always consider the needs of authors and readers when seeking to improve publications.
    4. Editors must guarantee the quality of papers and the integrity of academic records.
    5. Editors must publish erroneous pages or make corrections when necessary.
    6. The editor must have a clear picture of the source of research funding.
    7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the paper to the scope of publication.
    8. Editors may not reverse their decision or overturn a previous editor's decision without serious reason.
    9. The editor must maintain the confidentiality of the reviewer.
    10. Editors must ensure that all research materials they publish comply with internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
    11. Editors should only accept papers if they are reasonably sure.
    12. Editors must act if they suspect infringement, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable efforts to still seek a resolution to the matter.
    13. Editors must not reject papers on suspicion; they must have evidence of wrongdoing.
    14. Editors must not allow conflicts of interest to exist between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

The responsibility of the author (Author)

    1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
    2. The authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
    3. Authors must certify that the current manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
    4. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
    5. The author is required to retract or correct errors.
    6. All Authors named in the paper must make a significant contribution to the research.
    7. The authors must state that all the data in this paper is real and original.
    8. Authors must notify the Editor of any conflicts of interest.
    9. Authors must identify all sources used in the production of their manuscript.
    10. Authors must report any errors they find in published papers to the editor.

Reviewer Responsibilities

    1. Reviewers must keep all information regarding the paper confidential and treat it as privileged information.
    2. Reviews should be done objectively, without personal criticism from the author
    3. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
    4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author.
    5. The reviewer should also request that the Chief Editor be aware of any substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which he has personal knowledge.
    6. Reviewers may not review manuscripts that have a conflict of interest as a result of competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.