Publication Ethics

TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah recognizes the importance of ethical principles in academic publishing and is committed to maintaining high standards of ethical conduct. This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher.

This statement is based on the best-practice guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accordingly, the journal is committed to following recognized standards of publication ethics, editorial conduct, responsible research publication, and the handling of suspected research and publication misconduct.

Ethical Guidelines and References

The journal's publication ethics policy draws upon the following resources:

• Elsevier: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
• COPE: Responsible Research Publication—International Standards for Authors.
• COPE: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
• COPE: Responsible Research Publication—International Standards for Editors.
• COPE: Ethical Editing Guidelines for Editors.
• COPE: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
• COPE: Guidelines for Retracting Articles.
• COPE: Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The publication of articles in TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah is an essential contribution to the development of a coherent and respected body of scholarly knowledge. Published articles reflect the quality of research conducted by authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed publications also support the integrity of scholarly inquiry. It is therefore essential to establish clear ethical standards for everyone involved in the publication process.

Yayasan Yetti Afrida Center, as the publisher of TATANAN: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah, recognizes its responsibilities in maintaining publication integrity. The publisher is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, and other commercial activities do not influence editorial decisions. The publisher and Editorial Board will also cooperate with other journals and publishers when necessary to address ethical concerns and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

1.1. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts on the basis of their academic merit, including importance, originality, validity, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are independent of governmental or other external agencies. The Editor-in-Chief has overall authority over the journal's editorial content and publication schedule.

1.2. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

1.3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and Editorial Board members must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the authors' explicit written consent. Confidential information and ideas obtained through editorial handling must not be used for personal advantage. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts involving conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions. In such cases, another qualified editor will be assigned.

1.4. Publication Decisions

Editors ensure that manuscripts considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the validity and significance of the research, reviewers' comments, relevance to the journal's scope, and applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Other editors or reviewers may be consulted when necessary.

1.5. Investigations into Ethical Concerns

Editors, in cooperation with the publisher where appropriate, must respond to ethical concerns involving submitted manuscripts or published articles. Allegations of publication misconduct will be investigated even if they arise after publication. When an allegation is substantiated, the journal may publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other appropriate notice.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

2.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making informed publication decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessments that contribute to the quality of scholarly communication.

2.2. Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript or are unable to complete the review within the required timeframe must promptly notify the editor and decline the invitation.

2.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss them with others unless explicitly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This obligation also applies to reviewers who decline an invitation after receiving a manuscript.

2.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Comments should be clear, supported by arguments, and intended to help authors improve their work. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

2.5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited. They should also notify the editor of substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published or unpublished work of which they are aware.

2.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, personal, or professional relationships with the authors or affiliated institutions. Reviewers with such conflicts should decline the assignment. Unpublished material obtained during peer review must not be used for personal research without the authors' explicit written consent.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

3.1. Reporting Standards

Authors of original research must present an accurate account of the work performed and the results obtained, followed by an objective discussion of their significance. Manuscripts must contain sufficient detail and references to allow the work to be evaluated and, where appropriate, replicated. Review articles must be accurate, objective, and comprehensive. Fabricated, fraudulent, or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical conduct and are unacceptable.

3.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide relevant research data for editorial assessment and should make such data available where practicable and legally permissible. Authors should retain research data for an appropriate period, preferably at least ten years after publication where applicable, while protecting participant confidentiality, privacy, and proprietary rights.

3.3. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original work and appropriately cite the words, ideas, data, and findings of others. Plagiarism includes presenting another person's work as one's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial portions without proper attribution, and claiming results obtained by others. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and unacceptable.

3.4. Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission

Authors must not submit a manuscript that has already been published or is being considered by another journal. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is unacceptable. Secondary publication may be permitted in justified circumstances, provided that the authors and relevant editors agree, the secondary publication reflects the original work accurately, and the primary publication is properly cited.

3.5. Authorship of the Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis and interpretation of the research; participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript; approved the final version; and agreed to its submission for publication. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged, with their permission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all eligible co-authors are included and that all authors have approved the final manuscript.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose potential financial and non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence, or be perceived to influence, their research or its interpretation. Relevant financial relationships may include grants, employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership, and patent-related interests. All sources of financial support should be acknowledged, including grant numbers where applicable.

3.7. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must properly acknowledge all sources that contributed to their research and cite relevant publications. Information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence, or discussions must not be used without explicit permission from the source. Confidential information obtained through reviewing manuscripts or grant applications must not be used without the written permission of the relevant author.

3.8. Research Involving Human Participants, Animals, or Potential Hazards

Authors must identify unusual hazards associated with chemicals, procedures, or equipment used in their research. Research involving human participants or animals must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and relevant ethical standards. Where required, authors must provide evidence of ethical approval and informed consent. The privacy and rights of human participants must always be protected.

3.9. Participation in Peer Review

Authors are expected to cooperate with the peer-review process and respond promptly to editorial requests for clarification, supporting data, ethical approval documents, participant consent, and copyright permissions. When revisions are requested, authors should respond systematically to reviewers' comments and submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

3.10. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Authors who discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work must promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate in issuing a correction or retracting the article when necessary. If the journal is informed of a significant error by a third party, the authors must cooperate with the editorial investigation and provide evidence supporting the accuracy of the work where appropriate.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

4.1. Handling Unethical Publishing Behavior

In cases of suspected or confirmed research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher will work closely with the editors to investigate the matter and take appropriate action. Such action may include publishing a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the findings. The publisher must take reasonable steps to prevent the publication of work involving research misconduct and must not encourage or knowingly permit unethical practices.

4.2. Access to Journal Content

The publisher is committed to the long-term availability and preservation of scholarly content. Appropriate digital preservation, backup, and archiving measures should be maintained to support continued access to published research.

5. Publication and Authorship Principles

1. All submitted manuscripts are subject to peer review by at least two qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.
2. The journal uses a blind peer-review process, with reviewer identities protected in accordance with journal procedures.
3. Reviewers assess relevance, methodological soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language quality.
4. Editorial decisions may include acceptance, acceptance subject to revision, or rejection.
5. An invitation to revise and resubmit does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
6. Rejected manuscripts will not ordinarily be reconsidered unless the editor determines that exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
7. Acceptance is subject to applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. The same substantive research must not be published more than once without appropriate justification, disclosure, and permission where required.

6. Summary of Authors' Responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are original.
2. Authors must confirm that the manuscripts have not been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must confirm that the manuscripts are not under consideration by another journal.
4. Authors must cooperate with the peer-review process.
5. Authors must cooperate in correcting or retracting articles when necessary.
6. All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the research.
7. Authors must ensure that the data and findings presented are accurate and authentic.
8. Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must acknowledge and cite all sources used in preparing the manuscript.
10. Authors must promptly report significant errors discovered in their published work.

7. Summary of Reviewers' Responsibilities

1. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and treat them as privileged documents.
2. Reviews must be objective and must not contain personal criticism of authors.
3. Reviewers should express their assessments clearly and support them with appropriate arguments.
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited.
5. Reviewers should inform the editor of substantial similarities or overlaps with other work.
6. Reviewers must decline assignments when conflicts of interest could compromise their impartiality.

8. Summary of Editors' Responsibilities

1. Editors have responsibility and authority for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.
2. Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of the journal.
3. Editors should consider the needs of authors and readers when improving the publication.
4. Editors must safeguard the quality of published work and the integrity of the scholarly record.
5. Editors should publish corrections or other notices when necessary.
6. Editors should consider research funding and disclosure statements where relevant.
7. Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit and relevance to the journal's scope.
8. Previous editorial decisions should not be overturned without a valid and documented reason.
9. Editors must protect reviewer confidentiality in accordance with the journal's review model.
10. Editors must ensure that published research complies with applicable ethical standards.
11. Editors should accept manuscripts only when the evidence and review process support publication.
12. Editors must investigate suspected misconduct involving published or unpublished work and make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.
13. Editors must not reject a manuscript solely on the basis of unsupported suspicion; concerns must be assessed fairly and on the basis of evidence.
14. Editors must identify and manage conflicts of interest involving editorial staff, authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members.