Publication Ethics

The scientific publication code of ethics statement is a statement of the code of ethics by all parties involved in the publication process of a scientific journal, namely editors, peer reviewers, and authors. In general, the publication ethics of UPGRADE refers to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and the Regulation of the Head of LIPI No. 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications. Essentially, the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications upholds ethical values in publications, namely:

Neutrality: free from conflicts of interest in publication management;
Fairness: granting authorship rights to those entitled as authors; and
Honesty: free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

STANDARD ETHICS FOR EDITORS

1. Publication Decisions The UPGRADE Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is based on the validation of the article and its contribution to researchers and readers. In making this decision, the Editor is 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 Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2. Fair Play (Objective Assessment) The Editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without discrimination of religion, ethnicity, race, gender, and others.

3. Confidentiality 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, and the editorial board.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own personal research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

5. Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations The Editor must take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published article. The Editor may contact the author of the manuscript and give due consideration to the respective complaint. The Editor may also communicate further with relevant institutions or research bodies. When the complaint has been resolved, appropriate steps such as the publication of a correction, retraction, or other notes should be considered.

STANDARD ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions Blind 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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and the scientific method.

2. Promptness Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor immediately.

3. Confidentiality 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.

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

5. Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement or argument that has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant 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 of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own personal research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

STANDARD ETHICS FOR AUTHORS

1. Reporting Standards Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying research 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 behavior and are unacceptable.

2. Data Access and Retention Authors may be 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 prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. 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. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without citing the source, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Self-plagiarism or auto-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Auto-plagiarism is quoting or using sentences from one's own previously published work without citing the source.

4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

6. Authorship of the Paper Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on 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.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Publication Ethics