Publication Ethics

STATEMENT OF CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC PERIODICALS

 

PEER REVIEWER

Peer reviewers are required to provide recommendations to help authors to improve the quality of published manuscripts and editor in determining the editorial policy, under their respective expertise.

1. Willingness

Peer reviewers should inform the editor about the willingness to do a review of the manuscript to be published. If unwilling, peer reviewers must notify the editor.

2. Confidentiality

The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document. Communication with other parties without the author's permission is prohibited.

3. Standard Objectivity 

Peer reviewers must take hold of the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process. All comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions.

4. Reference Clarity

Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.

5. Conflicts of Interest

  • Peer reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
  • The information and ideas contained in the reviewed manuscript are confidential and should not be distributed or used for personal gain.
  • If having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution, or company involved in publishing, peer reviewers are not permitted to evaluate the related manuscript.

 

EDITOR

1. Publication Decision  

Decision-making of the published manuscript is the liability of the editor based on the policies and guidelines of the editorial board as well as based on compliance with legal requirements, such as not containing any information that harms others or containing slander, copyright disputes, and plagiarism. Communication with other editors or peer reviewers is acceptable to support the decision-making of the publication of the manuscript. Issuance decisions cannot be made by an editor based on personal considerations.

2. Fairness 

Editors must be able to evaluate a manuscript based on its scientific content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.

3. Confidentiality

All information contained in the manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed except to the author, peer reviewers, prospective peer reviewers, editors, and publishers concerned.

4. Conflicts of Interest

  • The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
  • The information and ideas contained in the text which is in the peer-review process are confidential and will not be distributed or used for personal benefit.
  • In case of having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution, or company involved in publishing, the editor is not permitted to evaluate the related texts. Thus, another editor board member should be involved in determining the issuance of the manuscript.
  • Editors must ensure that all parties involved in the review process and the publication of the manuscript declare a conflict of interest in the publication of a manuscript, as well as make corrections if a conflict of interest is revealed after the manuscript is published. If necessary, the editor can take appropriate action, such as publishing editorial statements or retracting the manuscript.
  • The share of non-peer-reviewed written by the editor should be differentiated and easily identifiable in the scientific periodicals.

5. Involvement and Collaboration in the Investigation

Reports related to actions that do not comply with the ethics of publishing are justified, even many years after the manuscript was published. The report must be addressed by the editor. Editors should contact the author and establish communication with the institution or entity related to the report. Correction, retraction, or other editorial notes should be published as a form of official response to the report complaints.

6. Fatal Error on Published Manuscript

If the editor or others encountered a fatal error and inaccuracies in the published manuscript, the editor should immediately notify the author and request his/her correction or retraction.

 

AUTHOR

1. Writing standard

2. The author should comply with the following standards for preparing the manuscript to be published in the scientific periodicals:

  • Presenting accurate (using controlled and specific protocols/ procedures), reliable, repeatable, prĂ©cised, and validated data.
  • Presenting sufficient details and references to ease other parties to repeat the research steps in the text.
  • Differentiating personal opinion from an accurate and objective scientific statement based on references. 

3. Data Access and Retention

Access to raw data should be granted for editorial review.

4. Originality and Plagiarism

The manuscript should contain the research of the original. Any citation or adaptation of the previously published author, research should be clearly stated. All forms of plagiarism should be subjected to rejection.

5. Multiple, Repetitive, or Simultaneous Publication

Multiple, repetitive, or simultaneous publications in other publications are objectionable things. The manuscript containing the same information cannot be submitted or published in other scientific periodicals.

6. Sources of Information and References

Information from personal communication such as conversations, interviews, correspondence, and discussions or activities that are confidential as a manuscript jury or grant application or research funding schemes, should not be used without written permission from the original source or author.

7. Writing Agreement

The main author and all co-authors must approve the final version of the script and signed the available submission form of the scientific periodicals.

8. Conflict of Interest

Any indication of conflict of interest should be disclosed as clearly as possible. All financial supports, working relations, consultation, resources ownership, honoraria, paid expert revelation, patent application/registration, grant, or another funding scheme should be clearly stated.

9. Fatal Errors in the Published Manuscript

The following actions should be taken if the writer encountered a fatal error in the published manuscript immediately contact the editor of the publisher.

10. Withdrawal of Manuscripts

The author is not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscripts and works invested by the Publisher.

If the author still requests withdrawal of his/her manuscript when the manuscript is still in the peer-reviewing process, the author will be punished by paying 500.000 (IDR) per manuscript, as a withdrawal penalty to the Publisher. However, it is unethical to withdraw a submitted manuscript from one journal if accepted by another journal.

The withdrawal of the manuscript after the manuscript is accepted for publication, and the author will be punished by paying 700.000 (IDR) per manuscript. Withdrawal of the manuscript is only allowed after the withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the Publisher. If the author doesn't agree to pay the penalty, the author and his/her affiliation will be blacklisted for publication in this journal. Even his/her previously published articles will be removed from our online system. The head of the author's institution will be sent a letter to notify this.

11. Retraction

The papers published in the SCIENTIA: Journal of Multi-disciplinary Science will be considered to retract in the publication if :

  1. 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)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. 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/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.