Publication Ethics

The Publication Code of Ethics referred to by the Prabayaksa: Journal of History Education is based on Head of LIPI Regulation No. 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication, which refers to COPE. The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication upholds the three ethical values in publication: Neutrality, Justice, and Honesty.

 

JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE ETHICS

  1. Determining the journal's name, the scope of science, the timeline, and the accreditation.
  2. Determining the membership of the editorial board.
  3. Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer review and other parties in the contract.
  4. Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review.
  5. Applying the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyrights.
  6. Conducting and presenting the journal policy reviews to the authors, editorial board, peer review, and readers.
  7. Making the behaviour code guidelines for editor and peer review.
  8. Publishing journals regularly.
  9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainability journal publishing.
  10. Establishing cooperation and marketing network.
  11. Preparing for the licensing and other legal aspects.

 

EDITOR CODE ETHICS

  1. Improving the quality of publications.
  2. Ensuring the process to maintain the quality of published papers.
  3. Leading the freedom to deliver an opinion.
  4. Maintaining the integrity of the author's academic track record.
  5. Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawal, and an apology if necessary.
  6. Owning the responsibility for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the authors' responsibility.
  7. Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer review to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
  8. Having an open-minded personality means accepting the new opinions or views of others who are different from their personal opinion.
  9. Prohibiting defending our own opinion, the author or third parties may result in a false decision.
  10. Encouraging the author to make improvements to the paper until it is worth publishing.

 

PEER REVIEWER CODE ETHIC

  1. Receiving the task from the editors to review the papers and submit the review to the editor to determine the feasibility of the paper for publication.
  2. Reviewing the papers in a timely manner (on time) per the style guide based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the author's legality, conclusions, etc.).
  3. Review the papers that have been corrected to follow the standards.
  4. Encouraging the author to improve the papers by providing feedback, suggestions, feedback, and recommendations.
  5. Maintaining the author's privacy by covering the results of the corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
  6. Reviewers must not directly or indirectly review any papers involving the reviewers in their work.
  7. Following the guidelines for peer review in reviewing papers and assessing the evaluation form paper given by the editors.
  8. Review papers substantively by not correcting grammar, punctuation, and mistakes.
  9. Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritize the benefit of the paper for the development of science, technology, and innovation; also comprehending the impact on the development of science writing.
  10. Prohibiting defending one's own opinion, the author or third parties may make the decision reference non-objective.
  11. Upholding the value of objectivity and free from any influences.
  12. Ensuring the confidentiality of findings in the paper until it is published.
  13. Having a broad understanding of the expertise and ability to provide a review of the paper appropriately and correctly.
  14. Refrain from doing a review if the research is from a different field of expertise. Instead, the peer review should recommend the researcher if there is any other expert on the subjects.
  15. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinions or views of others who are different from their personal opinion.
  16. Refusing to do the review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be reached. If absent, the peer reviewer should notify the editor as early as possible.
  17. The results of the review must be presented in an honest, objective, and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are: (a) Accepted without repair; (b) Accepted with minor repairs (after repaired by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review); (c) Accepted with major repairs (after repaired by the author, return to the peer review for re-review); (d) Rejected and recommended for other publication; (e) Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because, scientifically, the paper is flawed for the community.
  18. Giving rejection for the last recommendation as to the last choice related to the feasibility of the papers or with an indication of severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
  19. Reviewed papers aren’t allowed to be used for personal or third-party interests. Moreover, The use of some of the contents of the reviewed papers must have received permission from the author.

 

AUTHOR/ARTICLE WRITER CODE ETHICS

  1. The author is collectively responsible for the work and the content of the article, which covers methods, analysis, calculation, and its details.
  2. The author immediately responds to the comments made by the peer review professionally and timely.
  3. The author should inform the editor if they retract their paper.
  4. The author describes the limitations of the study.
  5. The author respects the publishers if they demand that the findings not be published in the form of interviews or through any other media before the publication.
  6. The author informs the editor of (a) a paper part of a phased research, multidisciplinary, and different perspectives.
  7. The author states that the papers submitted for publication are original, have not been published anywhere in any language, and are not in the process of submission to another publisher.
  8. If there is an error in the paper, the author should immediately notify the editor or publisher.                                        
  9. The use of copyrighted materials from other publications should be given written permission and gratitude.
  10. The author refers to the work of others as appropriate in citations and quotations used in the paper.
  11. When delivering discoveries or improving inventions, the authors should mention the job of the previous researchers/writers/founders.
  12. The author can only provide a bibliography of the publications if they have read the publication.
  13. If requested, the authors prepared the proof that the research has already met the research ethics requirements, including the field notes.
  14. The author adequately responds if there are any comments or feedback after the paper is published.