Our publication ethics refer to the COPE of Publication Ethic (COPE), which was established by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) through LIPI Regulation No. 5 of 2014 concerning Scientific Publication Ethics. The COPE involves all parties in the manuscript publication process: the publisher, editor, reviewer, and author. COPE encompasses three fundamental principles of scientific publication ethics: (1) Neutrality, which is freedom from conflicts of interest; (2) Fairness, which is the provision of creators' rights; and (3) Honesty, which is freedom from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
In relation to LIPI's COPE (LIPI Regulation No. 5 of 2014 concerning Scientific Publication Ethics), there are four pillars of scientific publication that must be referenced:
-
Practices related to the publisher's duties, which include setting publication policies and programs, facilitating the work of editors and reviewers, respecting the decisions of editors and reviewers, and determining sponsors and selecting third parties. In publishing, the publisher is obligated to ensure that submissions comply with the Scientific Publication Ethics as a whole. Regarding sponsorship, the publisher needs to ensure that sponsors and third parties do not impede rewards or influence the journal's policies and programs.
-
Practices related to the editor's duties, which include making decisions regarding manuscript publication, arranging manuscript reviews, and ensuring the fairness of review results, the confidentiality of content, and protecting it from manuscript manipulation.
-
Practices related to the reviewer's duties, which include reviewing manuscripts either openly or blindly, checking the accuracy and authenticity of data sources, references, and concepts, as well as the objectivity of the content, and conducting neutral reviews.
-
Practices related to the author's duties, which involve checking the practices related to the author's duties, including manuscript authority, originality statements, detection of potential manuscript duplication, acknowledgment of sponsorship, authority statements, and statements of research funding sources.
Below are the detailed rules and responsibilities of the publisher, editor, reviewer, and author.
Author's Duties
Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate account of their original research and an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow the journal's submission guidelines.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Manuscripts should not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editors agree to joint publication. Relevant previous works and publications, whether by other researchers or the authors themselves, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with proper citations.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. It is also expected that authors will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified, and the primary publication should be referenced.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
Authorship of the Paper: Authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individual contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Other individuals who have contributed significantly should be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who have made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or publication are listed in the acknowledgments section. Authors also ensure that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. 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 submitted manuscript, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: Authors must clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual inherent hazards.
Editor's Duties
Publication Decisions: Based on the editorial board's review report, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive these decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board policy and constrained by applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. Editors are responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and to maintain the integrity of the published record.
Review of Manuscripts: Editors must ensure that every manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for its originality. Editors must arrange and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors must explain their peer-review process in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors must use appropriate peer reviewers for papers under consideration for publication by selecting individuals with adequate expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Fair Play: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content regardless of the gender, sex, race, religion, nationality, etc., of the authors. A key part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is to uphold the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions about publication, which makes it essential that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, and consent for publication where applicable.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the written consent of the authors. Editors should not be involved in decision-making about papers that contain a conflict of interest.
Reviewer's Duties
Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They should not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement of observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should immediately inform the journal if they find any irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that a breach may have occurred either during the research or in the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal requests further information or advice.
Standards of Objectivity: The review of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively, and reviewers should clearly express their views with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions on specific feedback required from them and, unless there is a good reason not to do so, be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers should explain any suggested additional investigations that are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and those that would only strengthen or extend the work.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper. In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the authors, they should notify the journal if this knowledge poses a potential conflict of interest.
Timeliness: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable timeframe. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably certain they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe, informing the journal immediately if they need an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is impossible to complete the review of a manuscript within the specified time, this information should be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.