Publication Ethics

Introduction

Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial (JPIIS) is an international journal publishing a peer-reviewed articles. In addition to addressing allegations of research misconduct, this statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the publication of an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer reviewers, and the publisher (Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta). This assertion is based on the latest updates of Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors issued by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Journal Production Ethical Standards

A crucial component in the creation of a well-organized and reputable knowledge network is the publishing of an article in a peer-reviewed journal. The calibre of the writers' work and the organizations that support them are reflected in it. Peer-reviewed publications uphold and represent the scientific process. As a consequence, it's essential that all parties engaged in the publication process—the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society—agree on certain ethical criteria.

As the publisher of JPIIS, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta takes its guardianship responsibilities over all publication phases extremely seriously. We are also conscious of our other duties and ethical obligations. We are devoted to preventing commercial revenue—whether from advertising, reprints, or other sources—from influencing editorial choices. Additionally, when required, the Editorial Board and the Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta will support interactions with other journals and/or publishers.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

The term "research misconduct" refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in the creation, execution, or evaluation of research, in the authoring of papers by authors, or in the reporting of study findings. Editors have a duty to maintain the truth and integrity of the scientific record when authors are implicated in research misconduct or other major anomalies regarding publications published in scientific journals.

The Editors and Editorial Board shall use COPE best practices to handle complaints and equitably address alleged misbehaviour in such circumstances. The Editors will look into the claim. Any manuscript found to include this kind of misbehaviour will be disregarded. A retraction may be written and published with a link to the original article if such misbehaviour is found in a work that has already been published.

Finding out if the claim is true and fits the description of research misconduct is the first step. This first phase also entails figuring out if the people who are accused of misbehaviour have relevant conflicts of interest.

The corresponding author is informed of any claims of scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities and is invited to react in-depth on behalf of all co-authors. It is possible to request extra assessment and the involvement of professionals (such statistical reviewers) after receiving and evaluating the answer. Clarifications, new analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, often with a correction notice and modification to the original article, are adequate in situations when it is improbable that wrongdoing took place.

Institutions are required to investigate claims of scientific misconduct properly and completely. The veracity of the scientific record is a crucial responsibility shared by authors, journals, and organizations. By reacting correctly to complaints about scientific misconduct and taking the required steps based on these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, JPIIS will keep up its obligation to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publishing Decisions

The editor of the JPIIS is in responsibility of selecting the papers that should be published in the journal. The validity of the relevant work and its worth to scholars and readers must always be taken into consideration when making such choices. The editorial board's rules may serve as a guide for the editors, and they are also constrained by any applicable laws pertaining to plagiarism, copyright infringement, and libel at the time. The editors may confer with additional editors or reviewers before making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

For handling complaints concerning the journal, its editorial staff, editorial board, or its publisher, JPIIS 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. Emails containing complaints should be submitted to [email protected].

Fair Play

Without regard to the writers' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophies, an editor may at any moment examine submissions for their intellectual substance.

Confidentially

The corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, if appropriate, are the only people that the editor and any editorial staff may discuss a submitted article with.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished information revealed in a submitted paper may not be utilized by the editor for independent research projects without the author's explicit written approval.

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.

Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

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

Peer-Review Process Policy

The peer review procedure and policies are stated here.

Discussions and corrections after publication

Reader feedback and corrections on previously published articles are appreciated by JPIIS. 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.