Etika Publikasi

PUBLICATION ETHICS

The statement of the code of ethics for scientific publications is a statement of the code of ethics for all parties involved in the process of publishing scientific journals, including: Managers, Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. This statement of the code of ethics for scientific publications refers to the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, which essentially upholds three ethical values ​​in publications, namely:

  1. Neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in the management of publications;
  2. Justice, namely giving authorship rights to those who are entitled as authors/writers; and
  3. Honesty, which is free from Duplication, Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

This guide to the code of ethics for scientific publications was translated and adopted based on Elsevier's publication ethics policy which includes:

 

STANDARDS OF ETHICS FOR EDITORS IN CHIEF:

  1. Determine the name of the journal, scientific scope, periodicity, and accreditation if needed.
  2. Define editor membership.
  3. Defines relationships between publishers, editors, review partners, and others.
  4. Appreciate things that are confidential, both for contributing researchers, authors/writers, editors, and review partners.
  5. Implement norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyright.
  6. Review journal policies and submit them to authors, editors, review partners, and readers.
  7. Create behavioral code guides for editors and review partners.
  8. Publish journals regularly.
  9. Ensuring the availability of funding sources for the sustainability of journal publications.
  10. Building a network of cooperation and marketing.
  11. Improve the quality of the journal.
  12. Prepare permits and other legal aspects.
  13. Editor in Chief's decision is final based on submitted articles.

 

STANDARDS OF ETHICS FOR EDITORS:

  1. Publication Decision. The Editor of the Caraka Journal is responsible for publishing and deciding the articles to be published from the accepted articles. This decision is based on the validation of the article and its contribution to researchers and readers. In carrying out their duties, the Editor is guided by the policies of the editorial board and is subject to legal provisions that need to be enforced such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with reviewers or other editors in making these decisions.
  2. Objective assessment. The editor evaluates a manuscript based on its intellectual content without discrimination in religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation, and others.
  3. Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about manuscripts that have been received to anyone, other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, and the editorial board.
  4. Conflict of Interest. Article material that is submitted to the Caraka Journal and has not been published may not be used for the editor's personal research without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors must refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution with which the manuscript is related.
  5. Cooperation in Investigations. Editors must take responsive steps if there are complaints regarding ethics in manuscripts that have been received or in articles that have been published. The editor can contact the manuscript writer and give consideration to the complaint. Editors can also carry out further communication with related research institutions or institutions. When the complaint has been resolved, matters such as publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other records, need to be considered.

 

STANDARDS OF ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS:

  1. Contribution to Editor's Decisions. Blind peer review by reviewers assists editors in making decisions and can assist writers in improving their writings through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component in formal scholarly communication and scientific approaches.
  2. If the assigned reviewer feels that he is not qualified to review a manuscript or knows that it is not possible to conduct a review in a timely manner, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.
  3. Any manuscript that has been accepted for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown to or discussed with others unless it has been authorized by the editor.
  4. The review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.
  5. Completeness and Authenticity of References. Reviewers must identify published works that have not been cited by the authors. A previously published statement of observation or argument must be accompanied by a relevant citation. The reviewer must notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and other published articles, to the best of the reviewer's knowledge.
  6. Conflict of Interest. Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's personal research without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer must refuse to review the manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the work.

 

STANDARDS OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS:

  1. Writing Standards. The author must present an accurate paper/article on the research conducted and present an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article must be sufficiently detailed with sufficient references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraud or inaccurate presentation of papers is unethical and unacceptable behavior.
  2. Research Data Access. Authors may be required to provide raw data for the articles to be reviewed and must be able to provide public access to such data where possible, and must be able to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical behavior in the publication of scientific papers and is not acceptable. The author must ensure that all work presented is original, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, the author must provide appropriate citations. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as admitting other people's writings to be one's own, copying or rewriting substantial parts of other people's work without citing the source, and claiming the results of research conducted by others. Self-plagiarism or auto plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Auto plagiarism is citing the results or sentences from your own published work without mentioning the source.
  4. Writing Submission Terms. Authors may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical behavior in the publication of scientific papers and is not acceptable.
  5. Inclusion of Reference Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be done. The author must mention publications that were influential in the preparation of his work. Information obtained personally, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without the written permission of the source of the information.
  6. An authorship is a person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writings in the article. All parties who have made significant contributions are listed as co-authors. Corresponding authors must ensure that all co-authors are included in the manuscript and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.
  7. Hazards and Human Subjects. If the manuscript involves procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in its use, the author must identify these clearly in the manuscript. If the manuscript involves a human subject, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures are carried out in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and that the relevant agency and committee within the institution have approved it. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that consent has been obtained for experiments with human subjects. The right to privacy of human subjects must always be considered. Consent, permission, and acknowledgment must be obtained if the author wishes to include case details or other personal information in the manuscript. Written consent must be retained by the author and a copy of the consent or evidence that such consent has been obtained must be provided to the journal upon request.
  8. Errors in Published Posts. When the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author is responsible for immediately notifying the journal editor, as well as cooperating with the editor.

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR WEBSITE ADMINISTRATORS:

The website Administrator is the person responsible for managing the journal website. Specifically, the Website Administrator's job scope is as follows:

  1. Setting up a journal website;
  2. Configure system options and manage user accounts;
  3. Register for editors, reviewers, and writers;
  4. Manage journal features;
  5. View report statistics; and
  6. Uploading/publishing accepted papers.