Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

The publisher is committed to enforcing the most stringent publication ethics. All parties involved in the publishing process of this journal (authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher) are expected to agree to the highest standards of ethical behavior. This statement is adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Publisher's Responsibilities
   The publisher guarantees full integrity and professionalism in all its editorial processes. The publisher endorses the principles of COPE and has a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, fraudulent publication, and scientific misconduct. To verify the originality of all work, all submissions are screened using a plagiarism detection system before peer-review. All cases of alleged unethical behavior are taken very seriously and investigated in consultation with the editors, authors, and reviewers as appropriate. In cases of proven misconduct, the publisher will take all appropriate measures, including publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies.
2. Duties of Editors
   Publication decisions will be based solely on the article's quality, originality, and significance to researchers and readers. Editors will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' sex, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
   The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher. Editors shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the author's express written consent. Editors should avoid conflicts of interest in their decision-making.
3. Duties of Authors

• Reporting Standards: Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations. All data sources used in the research should be properly acknowledged and referenced.
• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors should not submit the same manuscript describing essentially the same research to more than one journal concurrently. This constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
• Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All co-authors must 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 must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.
• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author must clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

4. Duties of Reviewers

• Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper.
• Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research or knows that a prompt review is impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should ensure that all data sources have been properly acknowledged. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they find any irregularities, substantial similarity with other manuscripts, or suspect ethical misconduct.
• Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

5. Retraction Policy
   To guarantee the integrity of the scholarly record, articles may be retracted if there is evidence of:

• Plagiarism.
• Major scientific errors (e.g., unreliable findings due to data fabrication/falsification or honest error).
• Unethical research (e.g., publishing material/data without consent).
• Infringement of intellectual property rights.
• Redundant publication.
• Inappropriate authorship.
• Defamatory content.

 

 

Retraction Procedure:

• A retraction notice will be displayed on the article page, titled "[Retracted]: [Original Title]".
• The PDF file will be watermarked red with "Retracted".
• All involved parties will be notified.
• Article Processing Charges (APCs) are non-refundable for retracted articles

 

Policy and process

The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about the failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers, and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in the first instance be handled by the Editor-in-Chief(s) responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If they are the subject of the complaint please approach the in-house publishing contact. (Please check the contacts page on the journal homepage. If no publishing contact is identified send the query to contextualjournal@uai.ac.id).

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, and the reviewer reports and decides whether

• The decision to reject should stand
• Another independent opinion is required
• The appeal should be considered.

The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaints about processes, e.g. time taken to review
The Editor-in-Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or in-house contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaints about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher via their in-house contact for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. More information can be found here.

The Committee on Publication Ethics COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific, technical, and medical journals https://publicationethics.org/appeals. It will consider complaints against editors, but only once a journal’s own complaints procedures have been exhausted.