ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
Reported research must be carried out in an ethical and responsible manner, and must comply with all relevant laws.
The author must present results clearly, honestly, without fabrication, falsification or data manipulation.
The author must explain their research methods clearly and firmly so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
The author must comply with the publication requirements, namely the published work is original, not the result of plagiarism and has not been published elsewhere.
The author must be collectively responsible for the work sent and published.
Relevant sources of funding and conflict must be stated.
Responsible research publication
1. Strength and reliability
Reported research must be carried out in an ethical and responsible manner and follow all relevant laws.
The research reported must be carried out properly and carefully.
The researcher must use the appropriate method of analysis and data display and display (and if necessary, seek and follow expert advice on this matter).
Authors must be collectively responsible for their publications. Researchers must carefully examine their publications at each stage to ensure methods and findings are accurately reported.
Researchers must present data honestly without fabrication, forgery or data manipulation. Images cannot be modified so that they give misleading results.
Researchers must explain the methods they use and present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers must follow applicable reporting guidelines. The publication must provide sufficient details that allow the experiment to be repeated by other researchers.
The research report must be complete. Researchers must not omit unpleasant, inconsistent or unexplained findings or results that do not support the hypothesis or interpretation of the author or sponsor.
Funders and research sponsors cannot veto publications of findings that do not support their product or position. Researchers should not include agreements that allow research sponsors to veto or control publication of findings (unless there are extraordinary circumstances, such as research closed by the government for security reasons).
The author must immediately notify the editor if they find an error in the work sent, received or published. The author must work with the editor in issuing corrections or revocation of articles, if needed.
The author must accurately refer to someone else's work in the quote.
Authors may not copy references from other publications if they have not read the quoted work.
New findings must be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others must be displayed fairly and fairly. Scientific reviews and syntheses of previous studies must be complete, balanced and must include findings regardless of whether they support the proposed hypothesis or interpretation. Editorial or Opinion who convey a single point of view or argument that must be clearly distinguished from scientific review.
Limitations of research must be submitted in the publication.
The author must comply with the publication requirements that the published work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal unless the editor has agreed to a joint publication. If the article is published together, this must be explained to the reader.
Copyright laws and regulations must be followed. Copyright material (for example tables, numbers or quotes) must be reproduced with appropriate permission and recognition.
Previous work and publications that are relevant, both by other authors and the authors themselves, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. If possible, quotations must come from the original reference.
Text data, numbers or ideas originating from other researchers must be properly referred and may not be presented as if they belonged to the author himself. Original words taken directly from other research publications must appear in quotation marks with correct citation.
The author must inform the editor if the findings were previously published or if several reports or several analyzes from a data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author must provide copies of related publications or works submitted to other journals.
Some publications arising from a research project must be clearly identified and the main publication must be referred to. Translations and adaptations for different readers must be clearly identified. Original sources must be mentioned, copyright rules must be respected. If in doubt, the author must ask permission from the original publisher before republishing the work.
All research funding sources, including direct and indirect financial support, procurement of equipment or materials and other support (such as statisticians or assistant writers) must be mentioned.
The author must reveal the role of the research funder or sponsor (if any) in the research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or who might be an editor, reviewer or reader curious. This includes relationships with the journal, for example if the editor publishes their own research in their own journal. In addition the author must follow journal requirements and institutional requirements to state a conflict of interest.
6. Authors Contributions
The author of a research publication must accurately reflect the contribution of each individual to the article.
The main contributors must be registered as writers, while those who make contributions that are less substantial or purely technical, either in research or in publications are included in the acknowledgment section. The criteria as an author or acknowledgment must be approved at the beginning of the project.
Researchers must ensure that only those who fulfill the authorship criteria (ie have a substantial contribution to the research work) are valued by "authorship" and that the author with a proper contribution is not omitted. Journal institutions and editors must prevent guest, gift and ghost authorship.
-guest authorship are those who do not meet the criteria as writers but are listed by names of seniority, reputation or influence.
-gift authorship are those who do not meet the criteria as authors but are listed for personal support or in return for payment.
-ghost authorship (ghost writers) are those who fulfill the criteria as authors but their names are not listed.
All authors must agree that their names are included and must agree to the version sent and received for publication. Changes to the list and order of the author must be approved by all authors, including those of the authors who have been removed from the list. Correspondence writers must act as points of contact between editors and other authors. He must deal with other writers and involve them in key decisions about publication (eg responding to reviewer comments).
The author is not permitted to use acknowledgments that are misleading to imply contributions or support by certain individuals, in fact, are not involved with the work.
7. Accountability and responsibility
All authors must read and understand the articles sent and must ensure that the articles follow the principles set out in this guideline. In most cases, the authors are expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of research and reporting. However, if certain authors are only responsible for certain aspects of research and articles, this must be stated.
The author works with editors and publishers to correct immediately if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
The author must respond appropriately to post-publication comments or published correspondence.
8. Compliance with peer review and publication regulations
The author must follow the publisher's requirements that the work is not submitted to more than one publisher at the same time.
The author must inform the editor if their articles are reviewed, or choose not to respond to the reviewer's comments.
The author must respond to the reviewer's comments in a professional and timely manner.
The author must respect the publisher's request for a press embargo, meaning that it cannot allow their findings to be reported to the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published). Authors and their institutions must work together to coordinate media activities (eg press releases and press conferences) regarding publications. Press releases must accurately refer to the work and may not contain statements outside the results of the study.
9. Reporting that is responsible for research involving human subjects or experimental animals
Ethical feasibility approval letters and other permits or registration documents must be obtained before the research begins. The details of the letter must be submitted in the article, for example the name of the ethics commission and licensing authority.
If requested by the editor, the author must be able to show proof of the letters, including proof of approval after the explanation of the research subject.
Researchers should not publish individual data that can be identified without the specific approval of the individual (or guardian).
Researchers must publish all research results that might contribute to knowledge. Especially there is ethical responsibility to publish all clinical trial findings. The publication of failed cliche tests or obtaining results that reject hypotheses can help prevent repeated similar studies. If the findings from small studies that fail to reach statistical significance are combined, there may be results of a statistically significant meta-analysis and may be useful.
The author must provide a research protocol for journal editors if requested (eg for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare research reports with protocols to check that research has been carried out according to plan and that no relevant details have been ignored. Researchers must follow the relevant clinical test registration requirements and must include a clinical test registration number in all publications that appear from the clinical trial.
Adapted by :
Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Integrity Research, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing. Singapore (pp. 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7).
ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS
General duties and responsibility of the editor
The editor is responsible for everything published in the journal.
This means that the editor must (1) try to meet the needs of readers and writers; (2) trying to improve the quality of journals on an ongoing basis; (3) having a process or flow to guarantee the quality of the material published; (4) promoting freedom of expression and opinion; (5) maintaining the integrity of the academic track record; (6) set aside business interests that sacrifice intellectual and ethical standards; (7) willing to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions (withdrawals) and apologies if needed.
1. Relationship with readers
The reader must obtain information about who funds a research or other scientific work and what role the funder has in the research and publication.
2. Relationship with the author
The editor's decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication must be based on the importance of the article, its originality and clarity, and the validity of the research and the relevance of the text.
The editor does not cancel the decision to accept the manuscript unless there are serious problems identified at the time of submission.
The editor may not cancel the decision to issue a manuscript that has been made by the editor before, unless a serious problem is identified.
Explanation of the peer review process must be published and the editor must be able to account for any deviations from the outlined process.
Journal managers must have a mechanism that allows the author to appeal against editorial decisions.
The editor must publish guidelines for writing the script for the author. Guidelines must be updated regularly and must refer to this code of ethics.
3. Relationship with best partners (reviewer)
The editor must provide task guides for best partners (peer reviewers) including guidelines for submitting confidential results.
The editor must ask the best partner (peer reviewer) to reveal potential conflicts of interest before reviewing the manuscript.
The editor must have a system to ensure that the identity of the bestari partner (peer reviewers) is kept secret.
4. Relations with members of the editorial board
The editor must provide task guidelines for members of the editorial board.
5. Relationship with journal owners and publishers
The relationship between the editor and the publisher and / or owner must be based on the principle of editorial independence.
The editor makes decisions regarding the publication of articles based on the quality and suitability of the journal without interference from the owner of the journal.
6. Editorial and peer review process
The editor ensures that the peer review process is fair, unbiased and timely.
The editor must have a system to ensure that the script sent to the journal remains confidential while in the review process.
The editor must ensure the quality of the material published.
7. Maintain individual data confidentiality
The editor must comply with the law regarding confidentiality in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Indonesia. They must always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained during research or professional interaction.
8. Encouraging adherence to medical and health research ethics for research involving humans or experimental animals
The editor must ensure that the published research is in accordance with internationally recognized medical and health research ethics guidelines.
9. Matters relating to alleged violations
The editor has an obligation to act if they suspect ethical violations. This task applies to published and unpublished articles.
The editor should not only reject articles that are suspected of ethical violations, the editor is obliged to investigate further.
10. Maintain the integrity of the academic track record
Statements that are misleading or inaccurate must be corrected immediately with full attention.
The editor must follow the guidelines for retraction from COPE.
11. Intellectual property rights
The editor must be aware of intellectual property rights issues.
12. Support the discussion process
The editor encourages and is willing to consider criticism of a work published in a journal.
The article criticized must be given the opportunity to respond.
The editor must allow the publication of research with negative results.
13. Conflict of interests
The editor must have a system of managing conflicts of interest for themselves and for staff, writers, best partners (peer reviewers) and members of the editorial board.
Cope Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for Journal Editors (www.publicationethics.org).
ETHIC GUIDELINES FOR BESTARI PARTNERS (PEER-REVIEWER)
Bestari partners must:
Only willing to review the manuscript that is in accordance with the area of expertise and able to review the manuscript according to the required deadline.
Maintain peer-review confidentiality and not disclose details of the manuscript or the results of its review, during or after the peer-review process outside that released by the journal.
Do not use information obtained during the peer-review process for personal interests or for others or organizations or to harm or discredit others.
Stating all potential conflicts of interest, seeking advice from journals if not sure whether something is a conflict of interest.
Not influenced by the origin of the text, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the author, and must not be influenced by commercial considerations.
The resulting review is objective and constructive, avoiding commenting on attacks or making defamatory and insulting comments.
Providing professional analysis that is accurate and in accordance with the reviewer's expertise.
Understand that pretending to be another party during the review process is a serious violation.
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. www.publicationethics.org