The statement of the scientific code of ethics is a statement of the code of ethics of all parties involved in the publication process of this scientific journal (e.g. managers, editors, reviewers, and authors/writers). The statement of ethics code for scientific publications is based on the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, which essentially upholds three ethical values in publications, namely (i) Neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in publication management. ; (ii) Justice, which is to grant authorship rights to those who are entitled as authors/writers; and (iii) Honesty, which is free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

 

Duties and Responsibilities of Journal Managers

1. Determine the name of the journal, scientific scope, scale, and accreditation if needed.
2. Determine editorial board membership.
3. Defines the relationship between publishers, editors, peer partners, and other parties in a contract.
4. Appreciate confidential things, whether for contributing researchers, authors/writers, editors, and reviewers.
5. Applying norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyright.
6. Review journal policies and submit them to authors/authors, the editorial board, peer review partners, and readers.
7. Generate behavioral code guides for editors and peer-reviewed partners.
8. Publish a journal regularly.
9. Ensuring the availability of sources of funds for the sustainability of journal publishing.
10. Build cooperation and marketing networks.
11. Prepare licensing and other legal aspects.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

1. Meeting the needs of readers and authors/writers,
2. Strive to improve the quality of publications sustainably,
3. Implementing processes to ensure the quality of published papers,
4. Prioritizing freedom of opinion objectively,
5. Maintain the integrity of the author's academic track record,
6. Deliver corrections, clarifications, withdrawals, and apologies if needed,
7. Responsible for the style and format of the written works, while the content and all statements in the written work are the responsibility of the author/writer,
8. Actively soliciting the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers, and members of the editorial board to improve the quality of publications,
9. Encourage an assessment of the journal if there are findings,
10. Support initiatives to reduce research and publication errors by asking authors to attach an Ethics Clearance form that has been approved by the Ethics Clearing Commission,
11. Support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics,
12. Assessing the effect of published policies on the attitudes of authors/authors and peer-reviewed partners and improving them to increase responsibility and minimize errors,
13. Having an open mind to new opinions or views of others that may conflict with personal opinions,
14. Not maintaining your own opinion, author, or a third party which may result in non-objective decisions,
15. Encourage authors/writers, so that they can improve their written work so that it is fit for publication.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Received an assignment from the editor to review the paper and submit the results of the review to the editor, as material for determining the feasibility of a written work for publication.
2. The reviewer must not conduct a review of written works that involve him, either directly or indirectly
3. Maintain the privacy of the author by not disseminating the results of corrections, suggestions, and recommendations by providing criticism, suggestions, input, and recommendations
4. Encourage authors/writers to make improvements to writing
5. Reviewing papers that have been corrected according to predetermined standards.
6. Written works are reviewed promptly according to the published environment based on scientific principles (data collection methods, author legality, conclusions, etc.).

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

1. Ensuring that those included in the list of authors/authors meet the criteria as an author/writer.
2. Collectively responsible for the work and content of the article includes methods, analysis, calculations, and details.
3. State the origin of resources (including funding), either directly or indirectly.
4. Explain the limitations of the study
5. Respond to comments made by reviewers in a professional and timely manner.
6. Inform the editor if he will retract his written work.
7. Make a statement that the work submitted for publication is original, has not been published anywhere in any language, and is not in the process of being submitted to another publisher.

Allegations of Research Errors

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editor and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to help them resolve complaints and deal fairly with the violation. This will include an investigation of the allegations by the Editor. Submitted manuscripts found to contain such errors will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such errors, a retraction may be issued and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individual alleged to have committed the violation has a relevant conflict of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, such allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all co-authors, is asked to provide a detailed response. Once responses are received and evaluated, additional review and expert involvement (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases where infringement is unlikely, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published as a letter to the editor, and often including a notice of correction and correction to the published article are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on an evaluation of such concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the Jurnal Pekommas will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Complaints and Appeals

Jurnal Pekommas will have clear procedures for handling complaints against the journal, the Editorial Staff, the Editorial Board, or the Publisher. The complaint will be clarified to the person concerned regarding the complaint case. The scope of the complaint covers everything related to the journal's business processes, namely the editorial process, manipulation of discovered citations, unfair editors/reviewers, peer-review manipulation, etc. Complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

Ethical Supervision

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors should clearly identify these in the manuscript to comply with the ethical conduct of research using animal and human subjects. If necessary, authors must provide legal ethical permission from legal associations or organizations.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the author must clearly justify whether the data or information will be securely hidden or not.