Pernyataan kode etik publikasi ilmiah merupakan pernyataan kode etik untuk semua pihak yang terlibat dalam proses publikasi jurnal ilmiah, diantaranya: Pengelola, Editor, Mitra Bestari, dan Penulis/Author. Pernyataan kode etika publikasi ilmiah ini mengacu pada Peraturan Kepala LIPI Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 tentang Kode Etika Publikasi Ilmiah, yang pada intinya menjunjung tiga nilai etik dalam publikasi, yaitu:

1. Kenetralan, yakni bebas dari pertentangan kepentingan dalam pengelolaan publikasi;
2. Keadilan, yakni memberikan hak kepengarangan kepada yang berhak sebagai pengarang/penulis; dan
3. Kejujuran, yakni bebas dari Duplikasi, Fabrikasi, Falsifikasi, dan Plagiarisme (DF2P) dalam publikasi.

Panduan kode etik publikasi ilmiah ini diterjemahkan dan diadopsi berdasarkan kebijakan etika publikasi dari Elsevier yang mencakp:

STANDAR ETIKA BAGI EDITOR IN CHIEF:

1. Menentukan nama jurnal, lingkup keilmuan, keberkalaan, dan akreditasi apabila diperlukan.
2. Menentukan keanggotaan editor.
3. Mendefinisikan hubungan antara penerbit, editor, mitra bestari, dan pihak lain.
4. Menghargai hal-hal yang bersifat rahasia, baik untuk peneliti yang berkontribusi, pengarang/penulis, editor, maupun mitra bestari.
5. Menerapkan norma dan ketentuan mengenai hak atas kekayaan intelektual, khususnya hak cipta.
6. Melakukan telaah kebijakan jurnal dan menyampaikannya kepada pengarang/penulis, editor, mitra bestari, dan pembaca.
7. Membuat panduan kode berperilaku bagi editor dan mitra bestari.
8. Mempublikasikan jurnal secara teratur.
9. Menjamin ketersediaan sumber dana untuk keberlanjutan penerbitan jurnal.
10. Membangun jaringan kerja sama dan pemasaran.
11. Melakukan peningkatan  mutu jurnal.
12. Mempersiapkan perizinan dan aspek legalitas lainnya.
13. Keputusan Editor in Chief adalah final berdasarkan artikel yang dikirimkan.

STANDAR ETIKA BAGI EDITOR:

1. Keputusan Publikasi. Editor Jurnal Manajemen dan Ilmu Administrasi Publik (JMIAP) bertanggung jawab memnerbitkan dan memutuskan artikel yang akan dipublikasikan dari artikel yang diterima. Keputusan ini didasarkan pada validasi atas artikel serta kontribusi artikel tersebut bagi peneliti dan pembaca. Dalam menjalankan tugasnya, Editor dipandu oleh kebijakan dari dewan editor dan tunduk pada ketentuan hukum yang perlu ditegakkan seperti pencemaran nama baik, pelanggaran hak cipta, dan plagiarisme. Editor dapat berdiskusi dengan reviewer atau editor lainnya dalam pengambilan keputusan tersebut.
2. Penilaian yang Obyektif. Editor melakukan evaluasi atas suatu naskah berdasarkan konten intelektualitasnya tanpa adanya diskriminasi dalam agama, etnis, suku, jenis kelamin, bangsa, dan lain-lain.
3. Editor dan staf editorial tidak boleh mengungkapkan segala informasi tentang naskah yang telah diterima kepada siapapun, selain penulis, reviewer, calon reviewer, dan dewan editor.
4. Konflik Kepentingan. Materi artikel yang dikirim ke Jurnal Manajemen dan Ilmu Administrasi Publik (JMIAP) dan belum dipublikasikan tidak boleh digunakan untuk riset pribadi editor tanpa mencantumkan izin tertulis dari penulis. Informasi atau ide yang diperoleh melalui blind reviewharus dijaga kerahasiaanya  dan tidak digunakan untuk kepentingan pribadi. Editor harus menolak untuk meninjau naskah jika editor memiliki benturan kepentingan, yang disebabkan karena adanya hubungan kompetitif, kolaboratif, atau hubungan lainnya dengan penulis, perusahaan, atau institusi yang berhubungan dengan naskah tersebut.
5. Kerjasama dalam Investigasi. Editor harus mengambil langkah responsif apabila terdapat keluhan terkait etika pada naskah yang telah diterima ataupun pada artikel yang telah dipublikasikan. Editor dapat menghubungi penulis naskah serta memberikan pertimbangan atas keluhan tersebut. Editor dapat juga melakukan komunikasi lebih lanjut kepada institusi atau lembaga riset terkait. Ketika keluhan telah teratasi, hal-hal seperti publikasi atas koreksi, penarikan, pernyataan keprihatinan, ataupun catatan lainnya, perlu dipertimbangkan untuk dilakukan.

STANDAR ETIKA BAGI REVIEWER:

1. Kontribusi terhadap Keputusan Editor. Blind peer reviewoleh reviewer membantu editor dalam mengambil keputusan serta dapat membantu penulis dalam memperbaiki tulisannya melalui komunikasi editorial antara reviewer dengan penulis. Peer review merupakan suatu komponen penting dalam komunikasi keilmuan formal (formal scholarly communication) dan pendekatan ilmiah.
2. Ketepatan Waktu. Apabila reviewer yang ditugaskan merasa tidak memiliki kualifikasi untuk melakukan review atas suatu naskah atau mengetahui bahwa tidak mungkin untuk melakukan review dengan tepat waktu, reviewer yang ditugaskan harus segera memberitahukannya pada editor.
3. Setiap naskah yang telah diterima untuk direview harus diperlakukan sebagai dokumen rahasia. Naskah tesebut tidak boleh diperlihatkan kepada atau didiskusikan dengan orang lain kecuali jika telah diotorisasi oleh editor.
4. Review harus dilakukan secara objektif. Kritik yang bersifat pribadi atas penulis adalah tidak tepat. Reviewer harus menyampaikan pandangannya secara jelas disertai dengan argumen yang mendukung.
5. Kelengkapan dan Keaslian Referensi. Reviewer harus mengidentifikasi karya publikasi yang belum dikutip oleh penulis. Suatu pernyataan tentang observasi atau argumen yang telah dipublikasikan sebelumnya harus disertai dengan kutipan yang relevan. Reviewer harus memberitahukan kepada editor atas kesamaan yang substansial atau overlapantara naskah yang sedang di-review dengan tulisan lainnya yang telah dipublikasikan, sesuai dengan pengetahuan reviewer.
6. Konflik Kepentingan. Materi artikel yang belum  dipublikasikan tidak boleh digunakan dalam riset pribadi reviewer tanpa mencantumkan izin tertulis dari penulis. Informasi atau ide yang diperoleh melalui peer reviewharus dijaga kerahasiaanya dan tidak digunakan untuk kepentingan pribadi. Reviewer  harus menolak mereview  naskah jika reviewer  memiliki benturan kepentingan, yang disebabkan karena adanya hubungan kompetitif, kolaboratif, atau hubungan lainnya dengan penulis, perusahaan, atau institusi yang berhubungan dengan karya tersebut.

STANDAR ETIKA BAGI PENULIS:

1. Standar Penulisan. Penulis harus menyajikan  makalah/artikel yang akurat atas penelitian yang dilakukan serta menyajikan diskusi yang obyektif atas signifikansi penelitian tersebut. Data penelitian harus disajikan secara akurat dalam artikel. Suatu artikel harus cukup terinci dengan referensi yang memadai untuk memungkinkan orang lain melakukan replikasi atas karya tersebut. Penipuan atau penyajian makalah yang tidak akurat merupakan perilaku tidak etis dan tidak dapat diterima.
2. Akses Data Penelitian. Penulis dapat diminta untuk menyediakan data mentah atas tulisan yang akan direview dan harus dapat menyediakan akses publik atas data tersebut jika memungkinkan, serta harus dapat menyimpan data tersebut dalam jangka waktu yang wajar setelah publikasi.
3. Orisinalitas dan Plagiarisme. Plagiarisme dalam semua bentuk merupakan perilaku tidak etis dalam publikasi karya ilmiah dan tidak dapat diterima. Penulis harus memastikan bahwa seluruh hasil kerja yang disajikan merupakan karya orisinil, dan jika penulis telah menggunakan pekerjaan dan/atau perkataan dari orang lain, maka penulis harus menyajikan kutipan secara tepat. Terdapat berbagai macam bentuk plagiarisme, seperti mengakui tulisan orang lain menjadi tulisan milik sendiri, menyalin atau menulis kembali bagian substansial dari karya orang lain tanpa menyebut sumbernya, serta mengklaim hasil penelitian yang dilakukan oleh orang lain. Self-Plagiarism atau oto plagiarisme adalah salah satu bentuk plagiarisme. Oto plagiarisme adalah mengutip hasil atau kalimat dari karya sendiri yang sudah dipublikasikan tanpa menyebutkan sumbernya.
4. Ketentuan Pengiriman Tulisan. Penulis tidak boleh memublikasikan naskah yang sama pada lebih dari satu jurnal. Mengajukan naskah yang sama pada lebih dari satu jurnal merupakan perilaku tidak etis dalam publikasi karya ilmiah dan tidak dapat diterima.
5. Pencantuman Sumber Referensi. Pengakuan dengan benar atas hasil karya orang lain harus selalu dilakukan. Penulis harus menyebutkan publikasi yang berpengaruh dalam penyusunan karyanya. Informasi yang diperoleh secara pribadi, seperti dalam percakapan, korespondensi, atau diskusi dengan pihak ketiga, tidak boleh digunakan atau dilaporkan tanpa izin tertulis dari sumber informasi tersebut.
6. AuthorshipPenulis adalah orang yang telah memberikan kontribusi sigifikan terhadap konsepsi, desain, eksekusi, atau interpretasi atas tulisan di artikel. Semua pihak yang telah memberikan kontribusi signifikan dicantumkan sebagai co-author. Penulis korespondensi harus memastikan bahwa semua co-author telah dicantumkan dalam naskah, dan semua co-author telah membaca dan menyetujui versi akhir atas karya tersebut serta telah menyetujui pengajuan naskah untuk publikasi.
7. Bahaya dan Subjek Manusia. Jika naskah melibatkan prosedur atau peralatan yang memiliki bahaya yang tidak biasa yang melekat dalam penggunaannya, penulis harus mengidentifikasi hal-hal tersebut secara jelas di dalam naskah. Jika naskah melibatkan subjek manusia, penulis harus memastikan bahwa naskah tersebut berisi pernyataan bahwa semua prosedur dilakukan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan dan lembaga yang relevan serta komite dalam lembaga telah menyetujuinya. Penulis harus menyertakan pernyataan dalam naskah bahwa telah diperoleh persetujuan untuk eksperimen dengan subjek manusia. Hak privasi dari subjek manusia harus selalu diperhatikan. Persetujuan, izin, dan pernyataan harus diperoleh apabila penulis ingin memasukkan rincian kasus atau informasi pribadi lainnya dalam naskah tersebut. Persetujuan tertulis harus disimpan oleh penulis dan salinan persetujuan atau bukti bahwa persetujuan tersebut telah diperoleh harus diberikan ke jurnal apabila diminta.
8. Kesalahan dalam Tulisan yang Dipublikasikan. Ketika penulis menemukan kesalahan yang signifikan atau ketidaktepatan dalam karyanya yang telah dipublikasikan, penulis bertanggung jawab untuk segera memberitahukan hal tersebut kepada editor jurnal, serta berkerjasama dengan editor untuk menarik kembali atau memperbaiki tulisan tersebut. Jika editor memperoleh informasi dari pihak ketiga bahwa suatu karya publikasi mengandung kesalahaan yang signifikan, penulis bertangggung jawab untuk segera menarik kembali atau melakukan koreksi atas tulisan tersebut atau memberikan bukti kepada editor terkait ketepatan tulisan aslinya.

STANDAR ETIKA BAGI ADMINISTRATOR WEBSITE:

Administrator Website adalah orang yang bertanggung jawab atas pengelolaan website jurnal. Secara spesifik, lingkup tugas Administrator Website adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Menyiapkan situs web jurnal;
2. Mengkonfigurasi opsi-opsi sistem dan mengelola akun user;
3. Melakukan pendaftaran untuk editor, reviewer, dan penulis;
4. Mengelola fitur-fitur jurnal;
5. Melihat statistik laporan; dan
6. Mengunggah/mempublikasikan makalah yang sudah berstatus accepted.

The journal's policies on publication ethics follow COPE's Core Practices that were developed in 2017. The journal's policies on publication ethics can be explained as follow:

Journal’s Policies on Authorship and Contributorship

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

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

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, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as 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 behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
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.

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

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.

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. Where there are others who 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 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
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.

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 and excuse himself from the review process.

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.

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

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had 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.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
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.

The journal’s policy for handling the authors’ appeals against a rejection can be explained as follow:

The authors have the right to appeal against a rejection from the journal. An appeal is an extension of the peer review process and the same ethical standards apply. Thus, authors you should not submit an appeal whilst the article is under consideration by another publication. 

The authors lodging an appeal should contact the Editor in Chief through xjurnal.publisher@gmail.com and adminadmin@xjurnal.com outlining the case for reconsideration. To be considered, appeals must directly address the reason(s) given for the initial rejection decision. If reviewer reports were included with the decision letter, then these criticisms must be responded to in the appeal. Appeals that do not address reviewers’ criticisms, are dismissive of the reviewer comments, or contain offensive language will not be considered.

Appeals that meet the requirements above are sent to Advisory Editor for consideration. If successful, an appeal can lead to the article’s re-entering the peer review process. The article may ultimately be published following any revisions deemed necessary by the Advisory Editor. The authors should not submit a revised version of the article until the appeal process is complete. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.

Journal's Policies on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

The journal’s policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Authors are required to read the journal’s author guidelines and policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission. Research misconduct refers to unethical behavior or actions that undermine the integrity and credibility of scientific research. The most common types of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, and inappropriate authorship practices.

Plagiarism involves using someone else's work, ideas, or words without proper acknowledgment. It can occur in various forms, such as copying sections of text, paraphrasing without citation, or presenting someone else's ideas as one's own. Fabrication or falsification of data involves the deliberate manipulation or invention of research findings or experimental data, which can lead to false conclusions or misleading scientific claims. Inappropriate authorship practices occur when individuals are credited as authors without having made a significant contribution to the research or when deserving contributors are omitted from authorship.

Editors in Chief plays a crucial role in preventing research misconduct during the peer review process. Several measures implemented to safeguard the integrity of the research and uphold ethical standards are:

1. Promote awareness: Editor in Chief inform authors, reviewers, and editorial board members about research misconduct, ethical guidelines, and responsible conduct of research for the journal through clear instructions, guidelines, and other communication means.
2. Peer reviewer selection: Editor in Chief carefully select peer reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field and are committed to upholding ethical standards. Reviewers should be aware of potential signs of misconduct and be encouraged to report any concerns.
3. Thorough review process: Editor in Chief ensures a rigorous and transparent peer review process. Reviewers should scrutinize the submitted manuscripts for potential misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or questionable research practices.
4. Use plagiarism detection software: Editor in Chief employs TurnItIn as a plagiarism detection tool to screen submissions for potential instances of plagiarism or text recycling. It helps identifying cases of unacknowledged or improper use of existing work.
5. Cross-check data and results: Editor in Chief encourages reviewers to examine the accuracy and validity of the presented data and results.

Although the Editor in Chief has made various efforts to anticipate research misconduct in the journal, some issues may still arise. Therefore, the journal is open to receiving reports from readers regarding potential research misconduct. The Editor in Chief operates on the principle of presumption of innocence when receiving reports of potential research misconduct from readers until they are proven to be true.

Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:

1. The Editor in Chief receives a complaint through email that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
2. The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
3. The Editor in Chief will conduct an investigation, during which time the section editor of the particular suspected articles and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact. The Editor in Chief can also invite any Advisory Editor or Associate Editor in the process.
4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the Editor in Chief will take the following actions depending on the situation:
   1. If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description.
   2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
8. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

The journal is adherent to the principles of the and is currently applying membership to the COPE. Once the application is accepted, some information on this matter will be updated.

Journal’s Policies on Conflicts of Interest

The journal’s policy for conflicts of interest or competing interests is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

A conflict of interest can also be known as ‘competing interest’. A conflict of interest can occur when the authors, or their employer, or sponsor have a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations, or with the people working with them, that could influence the research.

When the authors submit paper to the journal, full disclosure is required. The Editor in Chief will firstly use this information to inform initial editorial decision. Then, after the acceptance, there will be a published disclosure to assist readers in evaluating the article. The Editor in Chief may decide not to publish the paper on the basis of any declared conflict of interest.

The author can declare the conflict of interest in the cover letter or on the manuscript submission form in the journal’s Open Journal System.

Conflict of interests can be financial or non-financial in nature. To maintain transparency, any associations which can be perceived by others as a conflict of interest must also be declared.

Some examples of financial conflicts of interests include:

1. Employment or voluntary involvement
2. Collaborations with advocacy groups relating to the content of the article
3. Grants from an entity, paid to the author or organization
4. Personal fees received by the authors as honoraria, royalties, consulting fees, lecture fees, or testimonies
5. Patents held or pending by the authors, their institutions, funding organizations, or licensed to an entity, whether earning royalties or not
6. Royalties being received by the authors or their institutions
7. Stock or share ownership
8. Benefits related to the development of products as an outcome of the work

Examples of non-financial conflicts of interests:

1. Receipt of drugs, specialist equipment, tools, computer programs, or digital applications
2. Access to data repositories, archival resources, museum collections, by an entity that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage financially or reputationally from the published findings
3. Holding a position on the boards of industry bodies or private companies that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage financially or reputationally from the published findings
4. Writing assistance or administrative support from a person or organization that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage from the published findings
5. Personal, political, religious, ideological, academic and intellectual competing interests which are perceived to be relevant to the published content
6. Involvement in legal action related to the work

If there are no competing interests to declare, authors should include a statement to the article to confirm that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Journal’s Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Journal’s policies on data sharing and reproducibility are based on on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal strongly encourages authors to include as supplementary material data sets and code, if any, that demonstrate the results shown in their final article. The journal policy encouraging the authors to share and make the data open is applicable only where this does not violate protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns. The authors are also encouraged to cite data and provide a data availability statement in the end of the manuscript.

A data availability statement (also sometimes called a ‘data access statement’) tells the reader where the research data associated with a paper is available, and under what conditions the data can be accessed. They also include links (where applicable) to the data set. The table below contains template statements that the authors can use or adapt. This is not an exhaustive list however, and an individual data set might warrant a different type of statement

Journal's Policies on Ethical Oversight

The journal’s policies for ethical oversight are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). According to the COPE, “ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices.” Based on this, the journal‘s policies can be explained as follow:

Consent to Publication

The journal’s submission has consisted information that the authors checklist including their consent to publish, copyright and license, and others. Thus, any submission received should be considered based on the authors’ consent.

Publication on Vulnerable Populations

The journal recognizes the importance of research on vulnerable populations and the need to shed light on their unique challenges and experiences. We welcome scholarly contributions in this area, provided that all ethical considerations and guidelines are rigorously followed throughout the research process. It is crucial to ensure that studies involving vulnerable populations are conducted with the utmost care, respect, and protection of the rights and well-being of the individuals involved. Researchers must obtain appropriate informed consent, maintain confidentiality, and address any potential risks or harm that may arise from their research. The journal expects authors to adhere to the highest ethical standards and follow established guidelines when conducting studies on vulnerable populations.

In instances where the Editor-in-Chief believes that a publication on vulnerable populations may have legal implications, the matter will be carefully reviewed. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the authors and advisory editor, may discuss the potential legal aspects and determine the best course of action. Depending on the scope and nature of the article, the Editor-in-Chief may also engage with official government bodies at the national or international level to ensure compliance with legal requirements and protect the rights of the vulnerable populations under study.

The journal remains committed to promoting responsible research practices and addressing the needs and concerns of vulnerable populations. By maintaining a rigorous ethical framework, we aim to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and the well-being of these populations, while upholding the principles of integrity, dignity, and social responsibility.

Ethical Conduct of Research Using Animals

The journal recognizes the importance of ethical conduct in research involving animals and is committed to promoting the responsible and humane use of animals in scientific studies. As part of our commitment to upholding ethical standards, we require authors to provide information about the appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or animal care and use committee (IACUC) approval in their submissions or within the article itself.

For studies involving animals, authors should include details about the approval obtained from the relevant institutional or ethical review board responsible for overseeing animal research. This information should demonstrate that the study adhered to established guidelines for the ethical treatment of animals, such as the principles outlined in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

By requiring this information, we aim to ensure that research published in the journal meets the highest ethical standards in animal welfare. We recognize the importance of respecting the rights and well-being of animals used in scientific research and expect authors to uphold these principles in their work. Transparency and accountability in reporting the ethical aspects of animal research contribute to the advancement of knowledge while promoting responsible conduct in the scientific community.

Ethical Conduct of Research Using Human Subjects

The journal recognizes the paramount importance of ethical conduct in research involving human subjects. We are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and promoting the well-being, rights, and privacy of individuals participating in research studies. In line with this commitment, we require authors to provide an institutional review board (IRB) approval and a thorough explanation of how informed consent was obtained from all participants in their research involving human subjects.

Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in research involving human subjects. Authors should ensure that participants are fully informed about the purpose, procedures, risks, and potential benefits of the study, and that they voluntarily provide their consent to participate. If there is any reasonable possibility that complete anonymity cannot be maintained, informed consent should be obtained from participants.

Respecting the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects is of utmost importance. Authors should never violate the privacy of individuals without prior informed consent. When reporting study data, identifying information should be excluded unless it is essential for the purposes of the study and the subject (or their legal representative) has given prior written informed consent.

In cases where informed consent has been obtained, it is crucial for authors to include documentation of this consent in their articles. By adhering to these ethical guidelines, we aim to ensure the protection and welfare of human subjects involved in research studies and maintain the integrity of scientific research.

Handling Confidential Data

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct and protecting the confidentiality of data. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to handle confidential data with utmost care and in compliance with relevant regulations and guidelines. Confidential data should be securely stored and transmitted, accessible only to authorized individuals involved in the peer-review process. Any potential conflicts of interest related to the handling of confidential data must be disclosed. In case of concerns regarding data privacy or breaches, the journal will initiate appropriate investigations and take necessary actions to safeguard confidentiality and ensure integrity in research and publication.

Ethical Business/Marketing Practices

The journal is committed to upholding ethical standards in all aspects of its operations, including the publication process. The journal firmly believes in fostering a fair and transparent environment that promotes scholarly excellence and discourages any practices that may exploit authors or compromise the integrity of academic research. As part of the commitment to ethical business and marketing practices, the journal does not engage in any activities that attract authors to publish their work at high costs or under misleading circumstances. The journal maintains a clear and equitable publishing process that is free from undue influence or financial exploitation.

It is important for authors to be aware that the journal takes no responsibility for any offers or solicitations from individuals or entities claiming to represent the and engaging in such unethical practices. If any author is approached with such offers, the journal strongly encourages them to consult the Editor-in-Chief to verify the authenticity of the offer and seek guidance on how to proceed.

By prioritizing ethical conduct and integrity, thee strive to maintain the credibility and reputation of the academic community at large. The journal is dedicated to ensuring that the publication process remains fair, unbiased, and free from any practices that compromise the principles of academic integrity and responsible research dissemination.

Journal's Policies on Intellectual Property

The journal’s policies intellectual property are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). According to the COPE, policies on intellectual property should include copyright, license, and cost associated with the journal publication. Based on this, the journal‘s policies can be explained as follow:

The copyright of each article is retained by the author(s).  The author grants the journal the first publication rights with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship and the initial publication in this journal. Authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of published journal versions of the work (for example, posting them to institutional repositories or publishing them in a book), with acknowledgment of their initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (For example in the Institutional Repository or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger citations of published work. Articles and all related material published are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The published content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Anyone is free to Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially) under the following terms: Attribution (You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use; ShareAlike (If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original); and No additional restrictions (You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits).

The journal charges only article processing charge of Rp3,000,000.00 or US$200. This charge is applied only after a submission is accepted. Author should understand that willingness to pay does not guarantee the acceptance of a submission. Waiver policy of 50% of article processing charge will be provided for author from countries categorized as Low-Income Economies by the World Bank.

Journal's Options for Post-Publication Discussions

The journal values open dialogue and constructive engagement with our readership. We welcome discussions and feedback from readers on the contents published in our journal. We believe that post-publication discussions contribute to the advancement of knowledge and foster a vibrant academic community.

Readers who wish to share their comments or provide feedback on published articles are encouraged to do so. They can send their comments directly to the Editor-in-Chief via the provided contact information. Additionally, readers have the option to post their comments on the independent online platform, https://pubpeer.com/. This platform allows for transparent and public discussions surrounding published articles.

In the future, we are committed to enhancing the accessibility and convenience of post-publication discussions. We aim to implement a feature on our website that will enable readers to comment directly on published articles. This will facilitate a more seamless and interactive exchange of ideas within our academic community.

Journal’s Policies on Corrections and Retractions

Journal’s policies on corrections and retractions are based on the Public Knowledge Project (PKP)’s documentation and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s retraction guidelines.

While errors in the publication record should be avoided if possible, prior to publishing, the journal will be proactive to address potential corrections or retractions. Necessity for corrections and retractions can arise from a number of sources, including:

• Error within the publication process
• Author request
• Report by reader or external party

Corrections and retractions in the journal can be categorized into three major categories:

• Minor Corrections: small errors that do not substantially change the content of the published work. For example: typos, metadata errors.
• Substantive Corrections: meaningful errors that impact the content. For example: addition or removal of meaningful sentences / paragraphs, changes to figures or data.
• Retractions: take-down of entire works (partial retractions should be avoided, and treated as a substantive correction).

Editor in Chief will should consider retracting a publication if:

• There is a clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorisation for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction will be made in the presence of a retraction:

• Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
• Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
• Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)
• Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
• Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
• State who is retracting the article
• State the reason(s) for retraction
• Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

• The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
• The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
• The Editor in Chief has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.