Publication Ethics

e-Saintika | Editorial Integrity

Commitment to Responsible Scholarly Publishing

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement applies to Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LITPAM), Indonesia. It defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher throughout the scholarly publishing process.

The policy is informed by principles and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal expects fairness, independence, confidentiality, accurate reporting, and accountability in manuscript evaluation, publication, and post-publication responses.

e-Saintika | Section 01

1. Duties of Editors

The Editorial Board must exercise impartiality when handling manuscripts under consideration for publication. Editors must respect authors' intellectual independence and provide an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive criticism or allegations concerning their work.

1. Editorial Board members must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and their contents throughout editorial assessment. Information may be disclosed only as needed for authorized evaluation and publication procedures.
2. No Editorial Board member may use data, reasoning, interpretations, or other unpublished information from a submitted manuscript in their own research without the author's written consent.

e-Saintika | Section 02

2. Publication Decisions and Peer Review

Publication decisions. The publication process begins with an initial assessment by the Editorial Board to determine whether a submission aligns with the journal's editorial objectives and is suitable for further evaluation. Eligible manuscripts are then sent to two independent peer reviewers with appropriate expertise.

1. The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor and must be based on academic merit and applicable policies, without inappropriate commercial influence.
2. An editor with an actual or potential conflict of interest concerning a manuscript must withdraw from its evaluation or final decision. Responsibility must be assigned to another suitably qualified editor without the relevant conflict.

Peer review. Each submission proceeding to review is assigned to a member of the Editorial Board who coordinates evaluation by two subject specialists. The review process is conducted anonymously in accordance with the journal's applicable review procedures. Manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential throughout the process.

The Editorial Board considers the substantive input of reviewers and other appropriate participants in the evaluation process. A reviewer's future participation may be discontinued when reports are consistently inadequate, disrespectful, improperly prepared, or submitted after the agreed deadline without reasonable justification.

e-Saintika | Section 03

3. Identifying, Preventing, and Addressing Misconduct

The journal, its editors, and peer reviewers must not knowingly tolerate research or publication misconduct. Credible concerns should be addressed responsibly, proportionately, and with due regard for fairness and confidentiality.

1. The Editorial Board should communicate the journal's ethical expectations to authors and reviewers.
2. Editors and reviewers should identify and report credible indications of misconduct for appropriate assessment.
3. When concerns arise, the responsible editor may consult other editors, relevant members of the Editorial Board, and suitably qualified specialists.
4. Relevant evidence and correspondence concerning allegations should be documented and retained appropriately, including identification of any affected manuscripts or articles.
5. The editor should contact the author or other parties involved and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to the concern or allegation.
6. The Editorial Board should consult relevant COPE guidance when determining how to handle suspected or established misconduct.
7. Assessments must distinguish honest error, methodological disagreement, and good-faith differences of interpretation from deliberate falsification, deception, or other misconduct.

Depending on the evidence and the stage of publication, editorial responses may include a request for clarification or correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction. Any action should be supported by a fair examination of the available information and appropriate documentation.

e-Saintika | Section 04

4. Duties of Reviewers

All reviewers are expected to understand and follow the journal's Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Reviewers must possess relevant scholarly expertise or substantial professional experience, supported where appropriate by recent research or recognized work in the field. They must provide accurate personal and professional information regarding their qualifications and expertise.

Reviewers who lack sufficient expertise, cannot provide an objective assessment, or have a material conflict of interest must decline or withdraw from the assignment. Manuscripts and related editorial materials must be treated as confidential by reviewers and Editorial Board members.

Reviewers should identify relevant published research that has not been cited when its omission materially affects the manuscript. They should provide constructive, evidence-based comments and report suspected research misconduct to the handling editor for appropriate action. Any necessary corrections to references or scholarly attribution may be requested through the editor.

e-Saintika | Section 05

5. Conflicts of Interest

Members of the Editorial Board and peer reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest involving authors, manuscript content, or the evaluation process. When their impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained, they must withdraw from handling or reviewing the manuscript.

Withdrawal is especially appropriate when any of the following circumstances applies:

1. A direct reporting, supervisory, or comparable dependent relationship exists between the author and the editor or reviewer.
2. There has been recent and substantial professional collaboration between the reviewer or editor and an author.
3. The editor or reviewer has participated as a collaborator in the project being submitted.
4. The editor or reviewer has a relevant financial interest in an organization, company, or competitor connected to the submission.
5. Personal, professional, or financial circumstances prevent an objective and independent assessment.

The journal seeks to prevent conflicts involving authors, reviewers, and editors from compromising the credibility of editorial decisions.

e-Saintika | Section 06

6. Duties of Authors

Submitted manuscripts must present original and accurately reported scholarly work, with sufficient methodological and evidentiary detail for other researchers to evaluate the findings and, where feasible, reproduce the research or assess the reliability of its interpretations.

1. Authors must comply with the journal's publication ethics requirements and avoid all forms of research misconduct.
2. Results must be reported honestly and transparently, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of research data.
3. All authors share responsibility for the integrity and originality of the data, results, and scholarly claims presented in the manuscript.
4. Plagiarism, simultaneous multiple submissions, undisclosed redundant publication, and fabrication or manipulation of evidence are serious violations of publication ethics.
5. Authorship must accurately reflect substantial scholarly contributions. Contributors who do not qualify for authorship must be acknowledged appropriately; misrepresentation of authorship is prohibited.
6. Authors must disclose relevant direct or indirect conflicts of interest involving editors, Editorial Board members, or other parties connected with the evaluation process.
7. Substantially the same work must not have been published previously or be under consideration by another journal. Relevant prior dissemination must be disclosed to the editorial office for assessment.
8. When authors identify a significant mistake in a submitted or published work, they must promptly inform the journal and cooperate with appropriate correction or retraction procedures.
9. When credible concerns about possible errors arise, authors should cooperate with the editor and provide relevant explanations, data, or documentation, subject to applicable ethical and legal restrictions.
10. Authors are expected to participate responsibly in peer review and comply with scholarly reporting, citation, and publication requirements.

e-Saintika | Section 07

7. Research Safety and Protection of Participants

Research hazards and human participants. When research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual or significant hazards, authors must identify the associated risks and relevant safeguards in the manuscript. Research involving human participants must protect privacy, dignity, well-being, and autonomy. Appropriate informed consent must be obtained and participant confidentiality or anonymity respected. Studies involving surveys, interviews, or other human-participant procedures must follow applicable institutional ethics requirements.

Research involving children. Authors conducting research with children must document appropriate protective measures, including parental or guardian permission and, where appropriate, the child's assent. Research must undergo ethics review and approval when required by applicable institutional or regulatory standards, or a justified exemption must be explained. Authors should describe procedures used to protect children's safety, privacy, and confidentiality, including appropriate handling or anonymization of research data.