Publication Ethic

Publication Ethics: General Statement

This policy outlines the publication ethics standards for all journals managed by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) through its Division of Journal and Scientific Publication, Directorate of Research and Community Service. It is applicable across disciplines including education, linguistics, health, and social sciences. The policy aligns explicitly with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices to ensure integrity, transparency, and fairness in scholarly publishing.

The journal expects all parties involved in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, and the publisher—to follow the standard and principles aligned with the COPE Core Practices. These include robust policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct, authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer review processes, and post‑publication discussions and corrections.

The journal’s policies complement relevant institutional, national, and international codes of conduct for research and professional practice.

Ethics for Authors

Research integrity and reporting

Authors must ensure that their work is original, accurate, and complete, and that it has been conducted and reported in line with recognised research and professional standards.
Data, methods, and analyses should be described in sufficient detail to allow verification and, where appropriate, replication; fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation are unacceptable.

Authorship and contributorship

Authorship is limited to those who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study and who agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
All contributors who do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged; practices such as guest, gift, or ghost authorship are contrary to COPE Core Practices and are not permitted.

Originality, plagiarism, and redundant publication

Manuscripts must be original and not under consideration or published elsewhere, in whole or in part, except where transparent, justifiable, and agreed with the editor (e.g., legitimate secondary publication).
The journal defines and prohibits plagiarism, including self‑plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication, in line with COPE guidance; submissions may be screened using similarity‑checking tools.

Conflicts of interest and transparency

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest—financial, personal, academic, or other—that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work, as well as all sources of funding and support.
Where funders have had a role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions, this must be clearly described.

Ethical oversight and approvals

Research involving humans, animals, sensitive data, vulnerable populations, or potential harms must comply with institutional and legal requirements and obtain appropriate ethics approval, where applicable.
Authors must describe ethical safeguards (e.g., informed consent, confidentiality, welfare considerations) and provide documentation to the editor on request.

Post‑publication responsibilities

Authors are obliged to notify the journal promptly if they discover errors or inaccuracies in their submitted or published work and to cooperate with the editor in issuing corrections, retractions, or other appropriate notices.

Ethics for Reviewers

Contribution and scope

Reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and in improving manuscripts through objective, constructive feedback within their area of expertise.

Confidentiality and data protection

Manuscripts and associated materials received for review must be treated as confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage, in line with COPE guidance on peer review processes.

Objectivity, fairness, and disclosure

Reviews should be impartial, evidence‑based, and free from hostile or discriminatory language; reviewers should comment on ethical concerns (e.g., possible misconduct, inadequate consent) when identified.
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline reviews where such conflicts (personal, institutional, financial, or competitive) could compromise or appear to compromise their impartiality.

Timeliness and competence

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript, or unable to review within the agreed timeframe, should inform the editor promptly and, where appropriate, suggest alternative reviewers.

Ethics for Editors and Editorial Staff

Editorial independence and responsibility

Editors are responsible for all content published in the journal and for ensuring that decisions are based solely on academic merit, alignment with the journal’s scope, and legal requirements; business needs must not compromise ethical or intellectual standards.
Editors should work to meet the needs of authors and readers, continuously improve the journal, and uphold the integrity of the scholarly record, in accordance with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Peer review management and transparency

The journal’s peer review model and procedures (including criteria for reviewer selection, handling of conflicts, and appeals) must be clearly described on the journal website and applied consistently.
Editors ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and confidentially, assigning them to qualified reviewers and taking reasonable steps to minimise bias and misconduct in peer review.

Conflicts of interest and recusal

Editors and editorial staff must declare their own conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where such conflicts exist, delegating responsibility to another qualified editor.

Handling allegations of misconduct, complaints, and appeals

Editors will follow COPE Core Practices and COPE flowcharts when responding to allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes), and when handling complaints or appeals.
The journal provides clear procedures and contact information for submitting complaints or appeals; these will be handled fairly, transparently, and without undue delay.

Ethics for the Journal and Publisher

Journal management and governance

The journal maintains a well‑described infrastructure for editorial independence, business model, policies, processes, software, and archiving, as required by COPE’s “Journal management” and “Intellectual property” core practices.
Information about journal ownership, editorial board, fees, and access options (open access, subscriptions, waivers) is transparent and easily accessible to authors and readers.

Intellectual property and access

Policies on copyright, licensing, permissions, and reuse (including any article processing charges) are clearly stated, along with how preprints, conference versions, and repository deposits are handled.
The journal supports long‑term preservation and discoverability through appropriate archiving services and indexing, and does not engage in predatory or deceptive publishing practices.

Post‑publication discussions and corrections

The journal encourages responsible post‑publication dialogue (e.g., letters, comments, replies) and has procedures to correct, clarify, retract, or otherwise update the scholarly record when necessary, following COPE recommendations and flowcharts.

Procedures for Allegations of Misconduct

Receiving and assessing concerns

Allegations of misconduct or ethical concern can be raised by anyone and should be submitted to the editor‑in‑chief or designated ethics contact; anonymous complaints will be considered where they are specific and supported by evidence.
The editor will conduct an initial assessment and, where appropriate, follow the relevant COPE flowchart(s) to determine next steps, which may include contacting authors, reviewers, institutions, or funders.

Actions and outcomes

Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, actions may include: revision, rejection, publication of corrections or expressions of concern, retraction, notification of institutions or funders, or restrictions on future submissions or reviewing.
All actions will be documented, proportionate, and aligned with COPE Core Practices, with the primary aim of maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record rather than punishing individuals.

Retraction Procedures

The journal follows COPE guidelines for retractions, issuing them for reasons including but not limited to plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research, authorship disputes, or significant errors invalidating conclusions.

Initiation: Concerns about published articles (raised by readers, authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or third parties) are submitted in writing to the editor-in-chief, with supporting evidence; anonymous reports are considered if detailed.
Initial assessment: The editor assesses the allegation promptly (within 2 weeks where possible), consulting the corresponding author and relevant parties, and initiates the relevant COPE retraction flowchart if concerns are substantiated.
Investigation: For serious issues, the journal may involve authors’ institutions, funders, or ethics committees; authors must respond within 30 days with evidence or corrections.
Decision and notification: If retraction is warranted, the editor-in-chief (or delegated senior editor) decides; all authors are notified, given opportunity to comment (published if appropriate), and institutions informed.
Retraction notice publication: A clear, dated retraction notice appears on the article page (with DOI), stating reasons without blame, linked to the original, and indexed; the PDF/HTML is watermarked "Retracted" but not removed.
Metadata and dissemination: Updated metadata signals retraction to databases/indexers; the publisher notifies relevant services (Scopus, DOAJ, etc.) and stakeholders.
Appeals: Authors or complainants may appeal retraction decisions in writing within 30 days, reviewed by an independent panel or external arbiter.

Plagiarism Procedures

The journal follows COPE flowcharts for suspected plagiarism in both submitted manuscripts and published articles, defining it as unattributed copying of large portions of text/data presented as original, beyond minor phrasing from non-native speakers.

For Submitted Manuscripts

Detection: All submissions undergo similarity screening upon receipt (UPI uses Turnitin); reviewers or editors flag concerns with evidence.
Assessment: Editor thanks informant, verifies degree (clear plagiarism vs. minor/redundancy), and contacts corresponding author neutrally for explanation, authorship statement, and evidence.
Resolution: If satisfactory (honest error, unclear instructions), require rephrasing/quoting with citation and proceed; reject for clear plagiarism, inform all authors/institutions if needed, and consider future submission bans.

For Published Articles

Initiation: Readers/reviewers inform editor with evidence; editor assesses promptly.
Investigation: Contact authors for response (within 30 days), involve institutions/funders if serious; use COPE flowchart.
Outcomes: Minor cases prompt correction notice; severe plagiarism leads to retraction (per retraction procedures), institutional notification, and potential bans on future involvement.

AI Use Policy

This journal permits the use of generative AI and AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, large language models) as aids in manuscript preparation, but strictly prohibits listing them as authors or co-authors, per COPE and major publishers' consensus. Authors remain fully responsible for all content, including AI-generated portions, and must verify accuracy, originality, and ethical compliance.

Permitted Uses

Language polishing, grammar checks, or formatting for non-native speakers (basic tools exempt from disclosure).
Literature summarization, idea brainstorming, or data visualization with human oversight.
AI as a methodological tool (e.g., in analysis), if fully described like other software.

Prohibited Uses

Generating core intellectual content (e.g., results interpretation, conclusions) without substantial human revision.
Creating or manipulating images/figures/data, except when AI is explicitly part of the research method.
Use by reviewers/editors on confidential manuscripts, to protect peer review integrity.

Disclosure Requirements

Authors must include a clear statement in the Methods (or equivalent) and Acknowledgements sections, detailing:

Specific AI tool(s) and version(s) used.
Precise role/purpose (e.g., "ChatGPT-4 was used to refine abstract wording after human drafting").
Full prompts, dates, and outputs if generating results/tables/figures, for reproducibility.

Template: "Generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript as follows: [Tool name/version] for [specific task, e.g., language editing of Section X]. Authors have reviewed and take full responsibility for all content."

Detection and Procedures

Submissions may be screened for AI-generated content using detection tools.
Non-disclosure or misuse triggers editor investigation per COPE flowcharts (e.g., plagiarism/suspected misconduct), potentially leading to rejection, retraction, or institutional notification