Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy
A Statement of professional ethical codes is a statement of the ethical codes of all parties involved in the process of publication of this scientific journal (Editors, Peer-reviewers, and Authors). In general, the publication ethics of the Jurnal Riset Biologi dan Aplikasinya (JRBA) refers to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) about Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editor and Peraturan Kepala LIPI Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 about the Ethical Codes of Scientific Publication. Essentially, the code of ethics itself upholds three values of ethics in publications, namely:
- Neutrality (free from conflicts of interest in public management),
- Justice (giving the right of authorship to the beneficiary as the author), and
- Honesty (free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in the publication.
DUTIES of AUTHORS
- Reporting Standards:
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
- Data Access and Retention:
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
- Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication:
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- Acknowledgment of Sources:
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
- Authorship of the Paper:
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
- Fundamental errors in published works:
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
- Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
- Publication Decisions. The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
- Complaints and Appeals. JRBA will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to the COPE guideline.
- Fair Play. An editor at any time shall evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
- Confidentiality. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. 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.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
- Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author, peer reviewer may also assist the author in improving the paper.
- Promptness. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
- Confidentiality. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
- Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is considered inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgment of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement of observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal but relevant knowledge.
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
JRBA carries a Comments and Criticism section, which provides a forum for expressing different viewpoints, comments, clarification, correction of misunderstanding, and reporting research misconduct regarding topics in published papers. Readers of the journal are earnestly invited to contribute their ideas to this forum.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
WITHDRAWAL OF MANUSCRIPTS
General Policy of Article Withdrawal
It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the editor of a journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal shall be published. In making this decision, the editor is guided by policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact, and unaltered as far as is possible. However, very occasionally circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances. In addition, Author(s) (and/or their institution) will be punished from any kind of article withdrawal in the form of article submission ban (temporary up to permanent ban)
This policy has been designed to address these concerns and to take into account current best practices in the scholarly and library communities. As standards evolve and change, we will revisit this issue and welcome the input of scholarly and library communities. We believe these issues require international standards. All of the Article Withdrawal Policies in JRBA (including Withdrawal of Manuscripts, Article in Press, Article Retraction, Article Removal, and Article Replacement Policies) is adopted from Elsevier Article Withdrawal Policy.
Article Withdrawal by Author(s)
Author(s) are not allowed to withdraw an article that has been sent to JRBA because the withdrawal of the article wastes the resources, time, and effort that the Editor and Peer-reviewers do in processing the article. If the author is still requesting the withdrawal of the article, the author will be punished in the form of a ban on the submission of a manuscript for (maximum) 8 numbers (4 volume or 4 years) for the manuscript withdrawal in the review process. However, it is highly unethical to withdraw the manuscript that has been sent from a journal because another journal has accepted it.
The withdrawal of the article after the manuscript has been accepted for publication is extremely unethical. The author will be given a punishment in the form of being banned on the submission of a manuscript for (maximum) 20 numbers (10 Volume or 10 years). Withdrawal of the manuscript in this policy includes the submission of the article revisions that exceed the time limit specified by the Editor and does not immediately notify the Editor and/or revise the manuscript. If the author did not revise the manuscript until the deadline without any confirmation, the Author can be banned for (maximum) 12 numbers (6 volume or 6 years).
Authors who make more than one manuscripts withdrawal can be banned permanently. This banning may also be applied to the author’s institution. The JRBA Editorial Board can publicly announce through the JRBA page and/or provide information to other journal editors or other publishers when JRBA Editorial Board is performing the banning processes in these cases.
Infringements of professional ethical codes (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or the like) are forbidden in JRBA. Occasionally, a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication. The retraction of an article by its authors or the editor under the advice of members of the scholarly community has long been an occasional feature of the learned world. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of libraries and scholarly bodies, and this best practice is adopted for article retraction by JRBA.
The editor will investigate deeply the infringements of professional ethical codes. The JRBA Editorial Board will notify the author(s) about the alleged violation along with its proof and offer the options that can be executed by the Author(s). If the Editor is unable to contact the author within the prescribed period, the Editor will discuss with other Editor and Editorial Advisory Board about this problem.
The standard of article retraction in JRBA are:
- A statement (letter) of article retraction, entitled “Retracted: (article title)”, will be issued by the JRBA Editorial Member in two languages (Indonesian and English).
- The retraction letter of this article (along with evidence, comments, criticism, or request from the member(s) of the scientific community) is placed on the previous page of the article with the same page number as the first page of the article and given the additional code “ed-1” for the first page of the letter and so on (e.g., 56-ed-1, 56-ed-2, etc.).
- The original version of the article will be given a “Retracted” watermark or stamp and placed after the letter. This new PDF file is made to replace the original PDF file article.
- The abstract of the article on the JRBA website is replaced with a statement about retracted of the article because it violates the ethical code and/or JRBA policy while the keyword of the article is deleted.
- The retraction letter of the article will also be published in JRBA on the edition when the article and the letter issued as part of the Comments and Criticism section.
ARTICLE REMOVAL: LEGAL LIMITATIONS
In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the online database. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or the Editor has good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.
In cases where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these circumstances, the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article and a history of the document.