ETHICAL GUIDELINE

1. Ethical Guideline for Authors

 

JESKaPe follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct for International Standard for Authors

 

In Summary

  1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation (including plagiarism).
  2. Author(s) should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
  3. Author(s) should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that others can confirm their findings.
  4. Author(s) should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
  5. Author(s) should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
  6. The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect the individuals’ contributions to the work, and it’s reporting.
  7. Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

Source: COPE (International Standard for Authors)

 

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the copying of ideas, text, data and other creative work (e.g. tables, figures, and graphs) and presenting it as original research without proper citation. Therefore, to avoid plagiarism, the author(s) need to obtain permission to reuse previously published work (even if properly cited) from the holder of the copyright (which is typically not the author).

It is essential that the author(s) inform editors and reviewers when any portion of an article is based heavily on previous work, even if this work has been written by one or more of the author(s) of the article. It is the responsibility of the author(s) not only to cite the previous work, including his or her own but also to indicate the extent to which an article depends on this work.

According to these principles, the author(s) should recognise the following guidelines:

  1. Plagiarism covers the use of ideas that have been presented in prior work, regardless of whether the ideas are expressed using the same words, tables or graphics.
  2. Word-for-word copying of the work by others must be clearly identified. 
  3. More extensive word-for-word copying of one’s own work is permitted (with permission from the holder of any copyright), but this must be clearly indicated in the article. 
  4. Proper attribution of an idea is required even if a journal operates with the double-blind review. 
  5. The first article in which a creative contribution occurs (text, ideas, analysis) gets the credit for the contribution, even if it has not yet been accepted for publication. Subsequent articles (by the same or different author(s)) are expected to cite the first article (even if it is under review).
  6. The use and reuse of empirical data follow the same principles as other types of research, although some issues are unique to the nature of data as opposed to the ideas expressed in text and mathematics. 
  7. The primary goal of this policy is transparent so that the editorial staff will understand what is new and original, and the degree to which the article is drawing on the work of others or the author(s). If unsure how to properly give credit to the work that is presented elsewhere (such as a parallel publication which is also under review or a conference proceeding), the best and preferred strategy is to describe the situation in a cover letter to the editor.

 

Procedures and Penalties

The assessment of appropriate penalties and notification will follow the guidelines set by the Journal’s Editors as summarised below.

The respective Editorial Boards are the primary committee in detecting plagiarism in the submitted manuscripts. Apart from that, the complainants will bring cases of suspected author(s) misconduct to the attention of the Managing Editor. The Managing Editor has to ensure that the following documentation is provided:

  1. A written description of the alleged misconduct; 
  2. Title of the manuscript; and
  3. A full list of the author(s)’ names.

An alleged plagiarised manuscript should consist of:

  1. Title; and
  2. List of the author(s)’ names and publication in which the manuscript appeared.

 

For the use of ideas, the content should consist of:

  1. Title of the idea;
  2. A full list of creators and date of creation;
  3. Copies of both manuscripts; and
  4. Full name and address of the complainant. 

 

The Managing Editor, after noticing a suspicion of plagiarism, will review all evidence and make a preliminary judgment regarding the claim. As part of the Managing Editor's deliberation, it is required that the author(s) be contacted and provided with an opportunity to rebut the charge. Lastly, if the Managing Editor finds sufficient evidence for justification of a charge of plagiarism, the Managing Editor shall appoint an ad hoc committee to make a determination of the charge. This committee should consist of, at a minimum, the Managing Editor and at least three other editorial team members.

 

The ad hoc committee shall at first contact the author(s) in writing and ask for a response to the charge. Based on the response, the ad hoc committee may obtain additional information, which may include a review of the manuscript in question by experts to help determine the level of plagiarism. This committee should also determine whether the charge is to be upheld and also the sanction, which is to be imposed against the author(s). Sanctions would typically include a ban from submission to the journal for a period of time. The committee has the sole responsibility and authority to determine the sanction. Sanctions may be applied unevenly in the case of multiple authors.

Once the finding and the sanctions are determined, the Managing Editor will communicate the results in writing to the author(s). If the charge is not upheld, the process ends, and no further actions are taken. In particular, the results are only revealed to those who are already involved in the process.

Given the serious nature of a charge of plagiarism, it is required that strict confidentiality be maintained throughout the process. The charge of plagiarism, supporting materials and outcome will only to be made known to those persons who are involved in the review process.

If plagiarism has been identified, and after all appeals are exhausted, the ad hoc committee will determine the appropriate steps to ensure that it does not occur again. If the plagiarised article has appeared in printing, author(s) have to notify the readership. These steps may include notification to the employer(s) of the author(s). 

 

2. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewer(s)

 

JESKaPe follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct for Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

In Summary

  1. The reviewer who has a of interest, not capable the assigned manuscript and/or cannot meet the deadline for review completion should immediately notify the editor and recuse himself or herself from the process of reviewing the manuscript.
  2. The reviewer should . The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as by the editor.
  3. The reviewer should not use for his or her research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.
  4. The reviewer should immediately notify the editor of any similarities between the manuscript under review and another article either published or under consideration by another journal.

 

3. Allegation of Misconduct

 

JESKaPe follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct for Allegations of Misconduct; Complaint and Appeals; Conflict and Interest; Data and reproducibility; Intellectual property; and Post-publication discussions and corrections.