PUBLICATION ETHICS

JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE OF ETHICS

Determine the name of the journal, scope of science, and timeline.
Determine the membership of the editors.
Define the relationship between publishers, editors, peer reviewers and other parties in the contract.
Respect the confidentiality of researchers, authors, editors, and contributing peer reviewers.
Apply norms and provisions on intellectual property rights, especially copyright.
Review policies on journals and present them to authors, editors, peer reviewers, and readers.
Create ethical code guidelines for editors and peer reviewers.
Publish journals regularly.
Ensure the availability of resources for further journal publications.
Establish cooperation and marketing networks as well as quality scientific works.
Prepare licensing and other legal aspects related to university journals.

EDITOR'S CODE OF ETHICS

Improve the quality of publications.
Guarantee and maintain the quality of published works.
Lead freedom of expression.
Maintain the integrity of the author's academic track record.
Submit corrections, clarifications, withdrawals, and apologies if necessary.
Have the responsibility to organize and format the work, while the content and any statements in the work are the responsibility of the author.
Assess the policies and attitudes of the journal published by the author and peer review to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
Have an open personality in accepting new opinions or views from others that differ from their personal opinions.
Prohibit defending one's own opinion, the author or a third party that can result in the wrong decision.
Encourage authors to make improvements to their written work until it is worthy of publication

PEER REVIEW CODE ETHICS

Accepting assignments from the editors to review papers and submitting their reviews to the editors, as material for determining the suitability of papers for publication.
Reviewing works in a timely manner (on time) in accordance with the style guide based on scientific principles (data collection methods, author legality, conclusions, etc.).
Reviewing works that have been corrected according to standards.
Encouraging authors to make improvements to the paper by providing feedback, suggestions, feedback, and recommendations.
Maintaining the author's privacy by covering the results of corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
Reviewers may not review works that involve reviewers in their work, directly or indirectly.
Following peer review guidelines in reviewing Works and assessing evaluation works given by the editors.
Reviewing works substantively by not correcting grammar, punctuation and typos.
Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritizing the benefits of written works for the development of science, technology, and innovation; also understanding their impact on the development of scientific works.
Prohibiting to maintain one's own opinion, the author's or a third party's which may result in the reference decision being non-objective.
Uphold the value of objectivity and be free from any influence.
Guarantee the confidentiality of findings in the work until it is published.
Have a broad understanding of expertise and be able to provide a review of the work appropriately and correctly.
Refuse to conduct a review if the research is not in their field of expertise. On the other hand, peer reviewers must provide recommendations to researchers if there are other experts in the field.
Have an open-minded personality in accepting new opinions or views of others that differ from their personal opinions.
Refuse to conduct a review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be achieved. If there is no peer review, the editor must be notified as early as possible
The results of the review must be presented honestly, objectively, and supported by clear arguments.

Some possible recommendations from the review are:

Accepted without revision
Accepted with minor revisions (after revision by the author, no need to go to peer review)
Accepted with major revisions (after revision by the author, return to peer review for re-review)
Rejected and recommended for other publications
Rejected and recommended not to be published to any publication because the work is scientifically flawed for the community.
Giving rejection to the last recommendation as a last resort related to the suitability of the work or with indications of serious violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
Work that has been reviewed must not be used for personal or third party interests. In addition, the use of part of the content of the reviewed work must have permission from the author.

AUTHOR / ARTICLE CODE OF ETHICS

The author is collectively responsible for the work and content of the article including methods, analysis, calculations, and details.
The author immediately responds to comments made by peer reviewers in a professional and timely manner.
The author must notify the editor if they withdraw their work.
The author explains the limitations of the research.
The author respects the publisher if they demand not to publish the findings in the form of interviews or through other media before publication.
The author informs the editor about (a) the work that is part of a gradual, multidisciplinary, and different perspective research.
The author makes a statement that the work submitted for publication is original, has not been published anywhere in any language, and is not in the process of being submitted to another publisher.
If there is an error in the work, the author must immediately notify the editor or publisher.
The use of material from other copyrighted publications must be given written permission and gratitude.
The author refers to the work of others according to the citations and quotations used in the paper.
When conveying new discoveries or refining discoveries, the author must mention the work of previous researchers / authors / founders.
Authors are prohibited from providing a bibliography of a publication if they have not read the publication.
If requested, the author must provide evidence that the research has met the requirements of research ethics, including field notes.
The author responds well to comments or feedback after the paper is published.

PLAGIARISM POLICY

Plagiarism includes but is not limited to:

referring and/or quoting terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing the source in the citation notes and/or without adequately citing the source;
referring and/or quoting random terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing the source in the citation notes and/or without adequately citing the source;
using sources of ideas, opinions, views, or theories without adequately citing the source;
formulating one's own words and/or sentences from sources of words and/or phrases, ideas, opinions, views, or theories without adequately citing the source;
submitting scientific work produced and/or published by others as a source of scientific work without adequately stating it.

PREVENTION

Every work submitted to the Setia Pancasila Scientific Journal must be accompanied by a statement signed by the author that:
The article is free from plagiarism;
If later it is proven that there is plagiarism in the article, the author is willing to accept sanctions in accordance with the laws and regulations.

SANCTIONS