Publication Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS

The code of ethics statement for scientific publications is a code of ethics statement for all parties engaged in the process of publishing scientific journals, including the Manager, Editor, Mitra Bestari (Peer Review), and Authors. This ethics code statement for scientific publications refers to LIPI (Institute of Sciences of Indonesia) Head Regulation Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, which essentially defends three ethical standards in publications, namely:

  1. Neutrality, which is the absence of conflict of interests in the management of publications;
  2. Justice, which is the assignment of authorship rights to those who are entitled to them; and
  3. Honesty, which is the absence of Duplication, Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

 

This scientific publication code of ethics guidance was translated and adopted based on Elsevier's publication ethics policy, which includes the following:

 

ETHICS STANDARDS FOR EDITORS IN CHIEF:

  1. Determine the name of the journal, scope of science, partiality, and if necessary, accreditation.
  2. Determine the membership of the editors.
  3. Establish the relationship between publishers, editors, sustainable partners, and other parties.
  4. Respect confidential matters, both for contributing researchers, authors, editors and best-selling partners.
  5. Implement norms and provisions concerning intellectual property rights, especially copyrights.
  6. Create and distribute a journal policy to the author, editor, best-selling partner and reader.
  7. Create a code of conduct for editors and Mitra Bestari (Peer Review).
  8. Publish journals on a regular basis.
  9. Ensure that funding sources are available for the sustainability of journal publishing.
  10. Establishing a cooperative and marketing network.
  11. Improve the journal’s
  12. Prepare licences and other legal consideration.
  13. The Editor in Chief decision is final based on the article submitted.

ETHICS STANDARDS FOR EDITORS:

  1. Publication Decision.  The Editor of the Journal of Accounting, Economics, Tax, Management, and Social Sciences (JAE-TAMANSS) is in charges of publishing and deciding on articles to be published from articles received. This decision is based on validation of the article and the contribution of the article to scholars 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 must be enforced such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In reaching the decision, the editor may consult with a reviewer or another editor
  2. Objective Assessment.  The editor evaluates a text based on its intellectual content without regards for religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation, or other factors.
  3. The editor and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the manuscript that has been received to anyone, other than the author, reviewer, prospective reviewer, and the editorial board.
  4. Conflict of Interest.  Article submitted to Journal of Accounting, Economics, Tax, Management, and Social Sciences (JAE-TAMANSS) and not yet published may not be utilized for personal research by editors unless specific permission from the authors is included. Information or ideas gained through blind review must be kept strictly confidential and not exploited for personal advantage. If the editor has a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution linked with the text, the editor must decline to consider the manuscript.
  5. Cooperation in Investigation.  If the editor receives ethical objections about a manuscript or an article that has already been published, he or she must take action. The editor can contact the screenwriter and discuss the complaint. The editor can also communicate with the relevant institution or research institution. After complaints have been resolved, things like corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, and other notes must be considered.

 

ETHICS STANDARDS FOR REVIEWER:

  1. Contributions to Editor's Decisions. Reviewers perform blind peer review to aid editors in making judgments and to assist authors in enhancing their writings through editorial contact between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an essential component of formal scientific communication (formal schooling communication) and scientific
  2. If a reviewer feels they lack the qualifications to perform a manuscript review or are aware that a review will be impossible to complete on time, the reviewer must immediately contact the editor.
  3. All manuscripts received for consideration must be handled as confidential documents. Unless permitted by the editor, tests should not be shown or discussed with others.
  4. Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal critics on the author are not appropriate. The reviewer must clearly convey his points of view, accompanied by supporting arguments.
  5. Completeness and Authenticity of References. The reviewer must identify the publication's work that has not been quoted by the author. A statement about previously published observations or arguments must be supplemented by relevant quotations. According to the reviewer's understanding, substantial similarities or overlap between submissions being reviewed and other published publications must be reported to the editor.
  6. Conflict of Interest.  Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's personal research without the author's explicit permission. Peer review information or suggestions must be kept confidential and not exploited for personal advantage. If the reviewer has a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution associated to the work, the reviewer must refuse to review the article.

 

ETHICS STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS:

  1. Writing Standards.  The author must present an accurate paper / article on the research conducted as well as an objective discussion of the study's importance. The research data must be accurately provided in the article. An article must be informative enough and include enough references for others to repeat the effort. Paper fraud or incorrect presentation is unethical and improper activity.
  2. Access Research Data.  The author may be required to supply raw data on the writing to be examined, and he or she must be able to provide public access to the data if practicable, as well as store the data within a reasonable period of time following publication.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism.  Plagiarism in any form is unethical and prohibited in the publication of scientific work. The author must verify that every work given is unique, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, the precise quote must be provided. Plagiarism can take several forms, including recognising other people's writings as their own, copying or rewriting major portions of other people's work without citing the source, and claiming the results of research undertaken by others. Self-Plagiarism, often known as oto plagiarism, is a type of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is defined as quoting results or sentences from one's own published works without citing the source.
  4. Shipping Post Provisions. The identical script may not be published in more than one journal by the same author. Submitting the same paper to many journals is unethical and improper in the publication of scientific work.
  5. Reference sources are included. It is always necessary to properly recognize the work of others. The author must cite sources that influenced his work's preparation. Personal information received through talks, email, or interactions with other parties may not be utilized or reported without the prior permission of the source.
  6. Authors are those who contributed to the article's conception, design, execution, or interpretation. Everyone who has made a significant contribution is named as a co-author. The author of the letter must guarantee that all co-authors have been included in the script, that all co-authors have reviewed and agreed to the final version of the work, and that the manuscript has been submitted for publication.
  7. Danger and the Human Subject.  If the manuscript includes a process or piece of equipment that has an extraordinary danger in its use, the author must clearly identify it in the text. If the text concerns a human person, the author must provide a statement stating that all procedures are carried out in line with relevant laws and institutions, and that the institution's committee has agreed. The author must add a statement in the text stating that permission for human subject experiments has been acquired. Human subjects' privacy rights must constantly be taken into account. If the author chooses to incorporate case details or other personal information in the text, approval, permission, and a statement must be acquired. The author must keep written approval and provide a copy of the agreement or proof that the agreement has been acquired to the journal if required.
  8. Mistakes in Published Posts. When an author discovers substantial errors or inconsistencies in his published work, he is accountable for alerting the journal editor immediately and collaborating with editors to retract or correct the material. If the editor receives information from a third party that a publication's work includes serious harm, the author is accountable for withdrawing or correcting the writing promptly, or presenting evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original writing.

 

 

 

ETHICS STANDARDS FOR WEBSITE ADMINISTRATORS:

Website Administrators are in charge of managing journal websites. The Website Administrator’s specific responsibilities are as follows:

  1. Setting up a journal website;
  2. Configure system options and manage user accounts;
  3. Conduct registration for editors, reviewers and authors;
  4. Manage journal features;
  5. See report statistics; and
  6. Upload/publish papers that have previously been accepted.