Publication Ethics

Akademika is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer,­ and the publisher (Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Metro). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Akademika is essential for developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. It directly reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles help and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.  

 

Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Metro as publisher of 
Akademika takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

 

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research, writing the article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles published in scientific journals, editors are responsible for ensuring the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

 

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing 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 have such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.

 

The first step involves determining the allegation's validity and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

 

If scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are possible, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. 

 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Akademika will continue to fulfil the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

 

The editor of Akademika is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making this decision.

 

Akademika will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to respected personnel concerning a complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

 

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

 

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.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the author's express written consent.

 

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.

 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

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.

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they know personally.

 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.

 

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, if practicable, and should, in any event, be designed to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.

 

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.

 

An author should not generally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unacceptable publishing behaviour.

 

Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly 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 others 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 in 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.

 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript to obey ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. Authors must provide legal ethical clearance from an association or legal organization if required. 

 

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.