Publication Ethics

1. Introduction
2. Duties of Editors
3. Duties of Reviewers
4. Duties of Authors
5. Allegations of Research Misconduct
6. Complaints and Appeals
7. Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)
8. Ethical Guideline
9. Plagiarism Policy
10. Retraction and Withdrawal Policy
11. Discussions and corrections after publication
12. Errata and Corrigenda
13. Advertising Policy

Declaration of Publishing Ethics

Introduction

Applied Research and Smart Technology (ARSTech) is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies all parties' ethical behaviour in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, the peer-reviewed, and the publisher. It refers to the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Legal Standards for Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed ARSTech is essential for establishing a coherent and valued information network. It is a direct reflection of the consistency of the author's research and the supporting institutions. The peer-reviewed papers endorse the scientific method and reflect it. Therefore, it is necessary for all parties involved in the publishing act to agree on standards of expected ethical behaviour: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and society.

As publisher of ARSTech, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta takes its guardianship duties seriously at all publication points, and we understand our ethical and other obligations. We remain committed to ensuring that ads, reprinting or additional commercial profits do not affect editorial decisions or control. UMS and the Editorial Board will also assist with correspondence with other journals or publishers where this is essential and useful.

Decisions on Publication

The editors of the ARSTech journal are responsible for determining which papers will be submitted for publication. The evidence must always inform such decisions of the work in question and their relevance to researchers and readers. The editors can be directed by the editorial board's policies and limited by specific legal provisions that are then in place concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may agree upon this decision with other editors or reviewers.

Right Play

An editor reviews a manuscript at any time for its substantive content irrespective of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy.

Privacy Policy

The Editor and any editorial staff shall not reveal any details on the manuscript submitted to anyone other than the author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, editorial advisors and the publisher, as necessary.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

This journal commits to maintaining the highest integrity level in the published content. The contents published in this journal are peer-reviewed (double-blind). Unpublished information mentioned in the manuscript must not be included in the work of an editor without the authors' express written consent.

Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions

Editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Principal Editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair Play

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Principal Editor has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors 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

Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial judgments

Peer review helps the editor when making editorial choices, and it may also help the author when improving the article via editorial contacts with the author.

Promptness

Referees are required to inform the editor and resign from the review process if they feel unqualified to assess the research detailed in a submission or are aware that it will be unable to complete the review in a timely manner.

Confidentially

Submissions of manuscripts for review must be handled as confidential materials. They cannot be seen by or discussed with anybody else unless the editor has given permission.

Objectiveness Standards

Reviews need to be performed impartially. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Referees must clearly and persuasively state their viewpoints.

Sources Acknowledgments

Reviewers are entrusted with finding pertinent published publications that the authors have not acknowledged. Any claim that a certain observation, deduction, or argument has already been published should be supported by a reference. Any significant overlap or resemblance between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material of which the reviewer is aware should be brought to the editor's notice.

Transparency and Potential Conflicts of Interest

Peer-reviewed ideas or information must be kept private and not exploited for one's own benefit. Reviewers shouldn't take into account submissions when they have links or affiliations with any of the authors, businesses or organizations linked to the papers that are competitive, cooperative, or in any other way.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Requirements

Reports on original research must be written by authors who can accurately describe the work done and objectively assess its relevance. Underlying data should be appropriately portrayed in the study. A paper should include enough details and citations for others to be able to recreate the work. False or purposefully incorrect remarks are prohibited because they represent unethical behavior.

Data Availability, Retention, and Reproducibility

The raw data related to an article must be provided by the authors for editorial review, and if possible, they must be willing to make the data accessible to the public and to keep them on file for a reasonable amount of time following publication. The repeatability of the data is the responsibility of the authors.

Plagiarism and Originality

The writers must make sure that their works are wholly unique, and if they have borrowed ideas or words from others, they must properly credit or quote them.

Concurrent, Multiple, or Redundant Publication

Generally speaking, an author shouldn't submit to several journals or main publications submissions that effectively describe the same study. It is unethical and inappropriate publishing activity to concurrently submit the same paper to many publications.

Source Acknowledgment

Always appreciate the contributions of others and give credit where credit is due. The nature of the reported work should be acknowledged by the authors in their citations of important publications.

Contributorship and Authorship of the Article

Only those who made a major contribution to the idea, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research should be allowed to sign their names as authors. All people who have contributed significantly should be identified as co-authors.

When other people have made significant contributions to the research endeavor, they should be thanked or cited as contributors.

The corresponding author is responsible for making sure that all legitimate co-authors are listed on the paper, that no unsuitable co-authors are listed, that all co-authors have reviewed the paper's final draft and approved it, and that all co-authors have agreed to the submission of the paper for publication.

Transparency and conflict of interest

Any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that may be interpreted as having an influence on the findings or interpretation of a paper should be disclosed by all authors in their publication. It is necessary to disclose all funding sources for the project.

Basic mistakes in published work

It is the obligation of the author to contact the journal editor or publisher as soon as they become aware of a substantial mistake or inaccuracy in their own published work and to collaborate with the editor to withdraw or fix the piece.

Ethical Review

In order to adhere to the ethical standards for research involving human and animal subjects, the author must explicitly identify any drugs, people, animals, techniques, or equipment that have exceptional risks inherent in their usage in the paper. Authors must, upon request, provide proof of their legal and ethical clearance from a reputable group or organization.

The authors must explain whether or not the study will securely hide any sensitive data or information if it includes commercial or marketing strategies.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• Directly copying text from other sources without attribution
• Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources without attribution
• Reusing text from your own previous publications without attribution or agreement of the editor
• Exception: Reusing text from the Methods section in the author’s previous publications, with attribution to the source, is acceptable.
• Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language without attribution.

If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may issue a correction or retract the paper as appropriate.

Data fabrication

This concerns the making up of research findings.

• Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
• Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript

Data falsification

Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This includes manipulating images (e.g., micrographs, gels, radiological images), removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, adding or omitting data points, etc.

Duplicate submissions

Duplicate submission is a situation whereby an author submits the same or similar manuscripts to two different journals at the same time, either within Academic Journals or any other publisher. This includes the submission of manuscripts derived from the same data in such a manner that there are no substantial differences in the manuscripts. Duplicate submission also includes the submission of the same/similar manuscript in different languages to different journals.

Authorship Issues

Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship, as well as processes for managing potential disputes.

Citation Manipulation

Citation Manipulation includes excessive citations in the submitted manuscript that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely for the purpose of increasing citations to a given author’s work or to articles published in a particular journal. This leads to misrepresenting the importance of the specific work and journal in which it appears and is thus a form of scientific misconduct.

Suspected Manipulation of Peer Review/Bias of Peer Reviews

Arstech selects the reviewers on any manuscript with due care so as to avoid any conflict of interest between the reviewers and the authors. Our policy is compliant with COPE Guidelines on peer review.

Complaints and Appeals

For handling complaints concerning the journal, its editorial staff, editorial board, or its publisher, Arstech shall have a well outlined system. Regarding the complaint situation, the complaints will be explained to respectable people. Any aspect of the journal business process might be the subject of a complaint, including the editing process, unethical editors/reviewers, peer review manipulation, and so on. According to COPE standards, the complaints will be addressed. For this reason, Arstech has legal experts in the field of Intellectual Property rights as the Ethics Advisory Board.

Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

The journal's intellectual property or copyright policy is stated here.

Ethical Guideline

Ethical Oversight

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ethical oversight should include but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices. The Arstech is committed to considering appeals concerning our authors' non-observance of ethical principles.

Research Involving Human Subjects

When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), revised in 2013, and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. At a minimum, a statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board should be stated in Section ‘Ethical Approval’ of the article.

An example of an ethical statement: "All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before participating in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX (Project identification code)."

Use of Animals in Research

The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).

The Arstech endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at: https://arriveguidelines.org/resources/author-checklists.

Research Involving Cell Lines

Methods sections for submissions reporting on research with cell lines should state the origin of any cell lines. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated, and references must also be given to either a published paper or a commercial source. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including those gifted from another laboratory, details of institutional review board or ethics committee approval must be given, and confirmation of written informed consent must be provided if the line is of human origin.

Example of an ethical statement: "The HCT116 cell line was obtained from XXX. The MLH1+ cell line was provided by XXX, Ltd. The DLD-1 cell line was obtained from Dr. XXX. The DR-GFP and SA-GFP reporter plasmids were obtained from Dr. XXX, and the Rad51K133A expression vector was obtained from Dr. XXX."

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including a collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. We recommend that authors comply with the CBD (https://www.cbd.int/convention/) and the CITES (https://cites.org/eng).

For each submitted manuscript supporting genetic information and origin must be provided. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. Vouchers may be requested for review by future investigators to verify the identity of the material used in the study (especially if taxonomic rearrangements occur in the future). They should include details of the populations sampled on the site of collection (GPS coordinates), date of collection, and document the part(s) used in the study where appropriate. For rare, threatened, or endangered species, this can be waived, but it is necessary for the author to describe this in the cover letter.

Example of an ethical statement: "Torenia fournieri plants were used in this study. White-flowered Crown White (CrW) and violet-flowered Crown Violet (CrV) cultivars selected from ‘Crown Mix’ (XXX Company, City, Country) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX (XXX Institute, City, Country)."

Plagiarism Policy

Arstech (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education) apply Zero tolerance towards plagiarism and therefore establishes the following policy stating specific actions (penalties) when plagiarism is identified in an article that is submitted for publication in Arstech.

Plagiarism involves the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Papers must be original, unpublished, and not pending publication elsewhere. Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be clearly identified as different from the present original text by (1) indentation, (2) use of quotation marks, and (3) identification of the source.

We use TURNITIN to evaluate the similarity index and then the editor decides the case of possible plagiarism (Similarity report will be provided to the author). The Editorial Board has passed the following actions:

• Similarity Index above 40%: Article Rejected (due to poor citation and/or poor paraphrasing, article outright rejected, NO RESUBMISSION accepted).
• Similarity Index (15-40%): Send to the author for improvement (provide correct citations to all places of similarity and do good paraphrasing even if the citation is provided).
• Similarity index Less than 15%: Accepted or citation improvement may be required (proper citations must be provided to all outsourced texts).

In cases 2 and 3, the authors should revise the article carefully, add required citations, and do good paraphrasing to outsourced text. And resubmit the article with a new Turnitin report showing NO PLAGIARISM and similarity of less than 15%.

Retraction and Withdrawal Policy

1. Retraction

The papers published in the Arstech (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education) will be considered to retract in the publication if:

• They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing and permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
• It constitutes plagiarism.
• It reports unethical research.

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org.

Arstech adopts the following retraction process:

1. An article requiring potential retraction is brought to the attention of the journal editor.
2. The journal editor should follow the step-by-step guidelines according to the COPE flowcharts (including evaluating a response from the author of the article in question).
3. The final decision as to whether to retract is then communicated to the author and, if necessary, any other relevant bodies, such as the author's institution on occasion.
4. The retraction statement is then posted online and published in the next available issue of the journal (see below for more details of this step).

Note that if authors retain the copyright for an article this does not mean they automatically have the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is of paramount importance and COPE’s Retraction Guidelines still apply in such cases.

2. Withdrawal

The author is not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts after preliminarily review because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscript, money, and works invested by the publisher.

Arstech has a policy regarding withdrawal as follows:

• If the author requests the withdrawal of his/her manuscript when the manuscript is still in the peer-reviewing process, the author will be punished by paying $200 USD per manuscript.
• If the withdrawal of the manuscript after the manuscript is accepted for publication; the author will be punished by paying $300 USD per manuscript.
• If the author doesn't agree to pay the penalty, the author and his/her affiliation will be blacklisted for publication in this journal (3 years).
• If the author request to withdraw a manuscript, an official letter signed by the corresponding author and agency leader must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief.

Discussions and corrections after publication

Reader feedback and corrections on previously published articles are appreciated by Arstech. A reader may send an email to the editor-in-chief with comments and corrections on an article that has already been published. If accepted, the comments and revisions will appear as a Letter to the Editor in the subsequent edition (by the Editor in Chief). Respected writers may contact the editor in chief to reply to suggestions from readers and revisions. The answer may be printed as a Response to a Letter to the Editor, if appropriate.

Errata and Corrigenda

Changes/additions to accepted articles

All content of published articles is subject to the editorial review process, organized by and under the auspices of the editor. Should the authors wish to add to their article after acceptance, they must submit a request to the editor, and the new content will be reviewed.

• If the new material is added to the accepted article, it must be submitted for peer review as a new manuscript, referring back to the original;
• If the new material should replace the original content of the accepted article, the editor may consider the publication of an erratum or a corrigendum.

Erratum

An erratum is a correction of errors introduced to the article by the publisher.

All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author at the proof stage, and any errors are ideally identified by the author and corrected by the publisher before final publication.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum refers to a change to the article that the author wishes to publish at any time after acceptance. Authors should contact the journal editor, who will determine the impact of the change and decide on the appropriate course of action.

Advertising Policy

1. Arstech sets high ethical standards in all its activities and, above all, defends the right to editorial independence. It does not allow advertising or sponsorship to influence the decisions made on editorial content.
2. Readers understand that advertising is different from editorial material. They know that the claims made in advertising are not endorsed by Arstech.
3. Arstech will carry advertisements that are legal and decent and conform to current recommendations and guidelines.
4. Decisions on the positioning of advertisements are made independently of decisions made in the editorial department on the content of a specific issue.
5. Editorial material will not be influenced by advertising. Arstech does not publish material to accompany advertising and does not sell advertising in relation to particular articles.
6. All decisions are at the discretion of the editor. If commercial clients adhere to these guidelines then their advertisement or sponsorship is likely to be accepted. Occasionally decisions may take time.