Publication Ethics

Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, and reviewers. All parties are expected to adhere to these standards, which are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

A. Duties of Editors
1. Publication Decisions
The Editor-in-Chief of Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published. Decisions are based on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editors may consult with members of the Editorial Board or peer reviewers in making this determination. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
2. Fair and Unbiased Review
This journal operates a double-blind peer review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. The editor ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual content. The editor assigns manuscripts to reviewers with relevant expertise and avoids individuals with known conflicts of interest.
3. Confidentiality
The editor and all editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information about a submitted manuscript must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, assigned reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts authored by colleagues, collaborators, or individuals with whom they have a personal or professional relationship that could compromise objectivity. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
5. Handling Research Misconduct
The editor is responsible for identifying and addressing suspected cases of research misconduct, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate submission, and authorship misconduct. When misconduct is suspected, the editor will follow the relevant COPE flowcharts to investigate and take appropriate action. The editor's role is to act in good faith while ensuring fairness to all parties involved. For detailed procedures, please refer to our Plagiarism Screening policy.
B. Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may also help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.
2. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except where the reviewer seeks advice from a colleague, with the editor's prior authorization. The content of the manuscript must not be used in the reviewer's own research before publication.
3. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support their assessments with evidence and references where possible.
4. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest — whether competitive, collaborative, or personal — with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. Any such conflict must be reported to the editor promptly.
5. Identifying Misconduct
Reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other published work or submitted manuscript of which they are aware.
C. Duties of Authors
1. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Any use of the work or words of others must be properly cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms — verbatim copying, paraphrasing without attribution, and self-plagiarism — constitutes unethical conduct and is not acceptable.
2. Data Integrity
Authors must present their results accurately and objectively. Fabrication (inventing data) and falsification (manipulating or selectively omitting data) are serious forms of misconduct. Authors should be prepared to provide the raw data related to their study for editorial review if required.
3. Citation Integrity
Authors must only cite sources that have been genuinely consulted and that directly support the content of the manuscript. Citation manipulation — including the inclusion of irrelevant references for the purpose of artificially inflating citation counts, coercive self-citation, or citing sources that were never read — is considered a violation of publication ethics.
4. Authorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All listed authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission. Gift authorship (including individuals who did not contribute) and ghost authorship (excluding individuals who did contribute) are not permitted. Authors are required to declare their individual contributions using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standard.
5. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission
Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting a manuscript that has already been published elsewhere — in substantially the same form — without disclosure is considered redundant publication and is not acceptable.
6. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the research should be acknowledged. Authors should declare one of the following in their manuscript:

(1) "The authors declare no conflict of interest in this research."
(2) "This research was funded by [name of funding body]. The funder had no involvement in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions."
(3) "Author [name] has an affiliation/interest with [institution/party] related to the topic of this research. This did not affect the objectivity of the research or reporting."

In addition, all authors are required to declare the source(s) of research funding (Funding Statement), including an explicit statement where no external funding was received, as set out in our Author Guidelines.
7. Ethical Statement for Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects
Authors whose research involves human or animal subjects must include an ethical statement in their manuscript. The following options are accepted:

(1) If a formal ethical clearance certificate is available: "This study received ethical approval from [name of ethics committee], certificate number [number], dated [date]. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the approved protocol."

(2) If no formal ethical clearance is available: "This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Data confidentiality and the welfare of all participants were maintained throughout the study."

(3) If the research does not directly involve human subjects: "This study did not require ethics committee approval as it did not involve direct intervention with human subjects."

Note: The Editorial Board recognizes that formal ethics review infrastructure is not uniformly available across all institutions. Under such conditions, option (2) is acceptable, provided that authors can genuinely demonstrate adherence to internationally recognized ethical principles. Authors are strongly encouraged to obtain formal ethical clearance for all future research involving human subjects.
8. AI Disclosure
Authors must disclose whether any AI-based tools were used in preparing the manuscript. AI tools may not be listed as authors. Full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work rests solely with the human authors. This policy is in accordance with COPE's position on AI authorship.

(1) "The authors declare that no AI-based tools were used in the preparation of this article."
(2) "The authors used [tool name] for [purpose, e.g., grammar checking]. All scientific content, analysis, and interpretation are entirely the work of the authors."
9. Errors in Published Work
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the editor and cooperate in either issuing a correction (erratum/corrigendum) or retracting the article, as appropriate.
D. Retraction, Correction, and Expression of Concern
Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record in accordance with COPE guidelines. The following procedures apply.
1. Reporting Channel
Suspected violations of publication ethics — whether raised by readers, other authors, institutions, or any other party — may be reported via email to [email protected]. Reports must be accompanied by clear supporting evidence (e.g., links to similar published articles, questioned data, or other relevant documentation).
2. Investigation Process
Every report is followed up by the Editor-in-Chief together with the Editorial Board. Investigations are conducted in reference to the relevant COPE flowcharts, selected according to the type of suspected violation (plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, authorship disputes, redundant publication, and so on).
3. Right of Reply
Authors whose work is under investigation will be given the opportunity to provide clarification or a response before any final decision is made.
4. Possible Outcomes
  • Retraction: applied where serious misconduct is confirmed — data fabrication/falsification, significant plagiarism, or redundant publication. The article will be marked "RETRACTED" on its publication page, accompanied by a retraction notice explaining the reason.
  • Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum): applied for minor errors that do not affect the validity of the findings.
  • Expression of Concern: issued where an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive, to inform readers that the article is under review.
  • Further sanctions: in cases of serious or repeated misconduct, the author(s) involved may be barred from submitting to this journal for a specified period.
5. Transparency
All retraction and correction decisions are published openly and linked to the original article, in accordance with COPE's transparency principles.
E. Post-Publication Discussion
Bima Loka: Journal of Physical Education recognizes that the scholarly process does not end at publication. The journal provides a channel for readers to respond to, critique, or comment on published articles, in order to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record and to encourage constructive academic discussion in the field of physical education.
1. Types of Responses Accepted
  • Scholarly Comment: a response to the methods, results, interpretation, or conclusions of an article, including alternative views supported by evidence.
  • Letter to the Editor: a longer, structured response that may be published together with the authors' reply.
  • Error Report: notification of an error in data, calculations, citations, figures, or other information in a published article.
  • Allegation of Ethical Misconduct: handled confidentially under Section D above and is not made public while the investigation is ongoing.
2. How to Submit a Response
Send your response by email to [email protected] using the subject line [Post-Publication] Short title of the article – Article DOI. The email must include:
  • the sender's full name, affiliation, and email address;
  • the full title and DOI of the article being addressed;
  • the response itself (maximum 1,000 words for a comment; maximum 1,500 words for a letter to the editor);
  • supporting references, if any;
  • a statement of any conflict of interest the sender has with the article or its authors.
3. Requirements for Responses
Responses must focus on the scholarly content of the article rather than on the authors personally; be courteous, objective, and evidence-based; include the sender's clear identity (anonymous responses will not be published, although reports of suspected ethical misconduct may be submitted confidentially); and contain no promotional content, personal attacks, or demeaning language. The editorial team reserves the right to decline responses that do not meet these requirements.
4. Handling Procedure
  1. Acknowledgement: the editorial office acknowledges receipt within 7 working days.
  2. Initial assessment: the Editor-in-Chief assesses the relevance, substance, and compliance of the response with the requirements above.
  3. Authors' right of reply: substantive responses are forwarded to the authors of the article, who are given 30 days to reply.
  4. Decision: the editorial team decides on one of the following: (a) publishing the response together with the authors' reply; (b) forwarding the authors' reply directly to the sender; (c) initiating a correction or retraction under Section D; or (d) taking no further action, with reasons given.
  5. Notification: both the sender and the authors are informed of the final decision.
5. Publication of Responses
Approved responses are published as a Letter to the Editor in the next issue, together with the authors' reply (if any), and are linked to the original article page. The authors of the article are always given the opportunity to reply before a response is published.
6. Public Annotation
Readers may also annotate articles directly using Hypothes.is. Such annotations are informal and do not replace the formal response procedure described above.

 

This publication ethics statement is based on the guidelines and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For technical details on plagiarism detection procedures, thresholds, and misconduct handling, please refer to our Plagiarism Screening page.