Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
TAUTAN: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora 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 of articles in this journal, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher. This ethical statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Accordingly, the journal adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, as well as the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement draws upon the following sources:
- ELSEVIER: Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit
- COPE: Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors
- COPE: COPE's New Code of Conduct
- COPE: Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors
- COPE: COPE Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors
- COPE: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
- COPE: Guidelines for Retracting Articles
- COPE: Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers
- COPE: COPE Retraction Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in TAUTAN: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the scholarly community.
Yayasan Yetti Afrida Center, as the publisher of TAUTAN: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. The publisher is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or additional commercial revenue have no impact on or influence editorial decisions. Furthermore, Yayasan Yetti Afrida Center and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.
A selection of key ethical principles is outlined below.
1. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Fair Play and Editorial Independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit, including importance, originality, validity, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Evaluation is conducted without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are independent of the policies of governments or other external agencies. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the editorial content of the journal and the timing of its publication.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and Editorial Board members must not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through manuscript handling must remain confidential and 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 any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the work. In such cases, another qualified editor will be assigned to handle the manuscript.
Publication Decisions
Editors ensure that manuscripts considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be published, taking into account the validity and significance of the work, reviewers' comments, and applicable legal requirements concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
Editors, in conjunction with the publisher, will take appropriate measures when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported case of suspected unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if the concern arises years after publication. Where an ethical concern is substantiated, the journal will publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other appropriate notice.
2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts through constructive editorial feedback. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly communication and scientific inquiry. Reviewers are expected to contribute fairly and responsibly to the evaluation of scholarly work.
Promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or are unable to complete the review promptly must notify the editors immediately and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except where expressly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief under exceptional circumstances. This obligation also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Comments and observations should be expressed clearly and supported by appropriate arguments so that authors can use the feedback to improve their manuscripts. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Statements, observations, derivations, or arguments previously reported in other publications should be accompanied by appropriate citations. Reviewers should also inform the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published or unpublished work of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers who have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with a manuscript must inform the editors and decline the invitation. Unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.
3. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
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 the significance of the findings. Manuscripts must contain sufficient detail and references to allow other researchers to understand and, where appropriate, replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while opinion or perspective articles should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data supporting their research for editorial review and should be prepared to make data publicly available where practicable. Authors should ensure that data remain accessible to competent professionals for at least ten years after publication, preferably through an institutional or subject-based repository, provided that participant confidentiality is protected and applicable legal or proprietary restrictions do not prevent disclosure.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their submissions are original works. Any use of the work or words of others must be appropriately acknowledged and cited. Publications that have significantly influenced the research must also be cited. Plagiarism includes presenting another person's work as one's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another work without attribution, and claiming results obtained by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission
Manuscripts reporting essentially the same research must not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Authors must not submit a manuscript that has already been published elsewhere or submit the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals. Such practices constitute unethical publishing behavior.
Secondary publication of certain types of articles, such as clinical guidelines or translations, may be justified under specific conditions. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary publication. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the Manuscript
Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the work and can take public responsibility for its content. Authors should have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis and interpretation of the study; participated in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content; and approved the final version for publication.
Individuals who provided technical assistance, writing or editing support, or general assistance without meeting the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section, with their written permission. The corresponding author must ensure that all eligible co-authors, and only eligible co-authors, are included and that all co-authors have approved the final manuscript and agreed to its submission.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose potential conflicts of interest as early as possible, typically at submission and in the manuscript. These may include financial interests, such as honoraria, educational grants, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, or patent-related arrangements, as well as non-financial interests, including personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs relevant to the manuscript. All sources of financial support must be disclosed, including grant or reference numbers where applicable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must properly acknowledge the work of others and cite publications that have influenced the reported research. Information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence, or discussions must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Confidential information obtained through activities such as manuscript reviewing or grant assessment must not be used without the explicit written permission of the relevant author or rights holder.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment presenting unusual hazards, authors must clearly identify them in the manuscript. Research involving human participants or animals must comply with relevant laws, regulations, and institutional guidelines and must receive approval from the appropriate ethics committee where required. Manuscripts involving human participants must include an appropriate statement regarding ethical approval and informed consent. The privacy and rights of participants must always be protected.
Peer Review
Authors are required to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate with editorial requests for raw data, clarification, evidence of ethical approval, participant consent, and copyright permissions. When revisions are requested, authors must respond systematically to reviewers' comments, address each point, and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal editors or publisher and cooperate in correcting the article or retracting it where necessary. If editors or the publisher are informed by a third party of a significant error, the authors are expected to cooperate in correcting or retracting the article or provide evidence supporting the accuracy of the published work.
4. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher
Handling Unethical Publishing Behavior
In cases of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take appropriate measures to investigate the matter and address the article concerned. These measures may include the publication of a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or, in serious cases, retraction. The publisher and editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of work involving research misconduct and will not encourage or knowingly permit such misconduct.
Access to Journal Content
The publisher is committed to the long-term availability and preservation of scholarly research. The journal seeks to maintain access to its published content through appropriate digital archiving and preservation arrangements.
Section A: Publication and Authorship
- All submitted manuscripts are subject to a rigorous peer-review process involving at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
- The journal applies a blind peer-review process.
- Review criteria include relevance, methodological soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language quality.
- Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
- An invitation to revise and resubmit does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
- Rejected manuscripts will not ordinarily be reconsidered unless the journal explicitly invites a new submission.
- Acceptance is subject to applicable legal requirements concerning libel, copyright infringement, plagiarism, and other relevant matters.
- The same research must not be published in more than one primary publication.
Section B: Authors' Responsibilities
- Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
- Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication by another journal.
- Authors must participate in the peer-review process and respond appropriately to editorial feedback.
- Authors must cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions when necessary.
- All listed authors must have made significant contributions to the research and meet the journal's authorship criteria.
- Authors must ensure that the data reported in the manuscript are accurate and authentic.
- Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
- Authors must acknowledge all sources used in preparing the manuscript.
- Authors must promptly inform the editors of significant errors discovered in their published work.
Section C: Reviewers' Responsibilities
- Reviewers must keep manuscript information confidential and treat it as privileged information.
- Reviews must be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the authors.
- Reviewers must express their views clearly and support their assessments with appropriate arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief of substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other work of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts when conflicts of interest arise from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the work.
Section D: Editors' Responsibilities
- Editors have responsibility and authority to accept or reject manuscripts in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and ethical standards.
- Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of the journal.
- Editors should consider the needs of authors and readers when seeking to improve the publication.
- Editors must safeguard the quality of published articles and the integrity of the scholarly record.
- Editors should publish corrections or errata when necessary.
- Editors should ensure that relevant research funding sources are disclosed.
- Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope.
- Previous editorial decisions should not be reversed without a reasonable and defensible basis.
- Editors must preserve reviewer anonymity where required by the journal's peer-review model.
- Editors must ensure that published research complies with applicable ethical standards and guidelines.
- Editors should accept a manuscript only when the available evidence and review process provide a reasonable basis for acceptance.
- Editors must respond to suspected misconduct in both published and unpublished work and make reasonable efforts to investigate and resolve the matter.
- Editors must not reject manuscripts solely on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicions; concerns must be assessed fairly and supported by appropriate evidence.
- Editors must identify, disclose, and appropriately manage conflicts of interest involving editorial staff, authors, reviewers, or Editorial Board members.
