Publication Ethics

Journal Of Riview multidisciplinary (Bersinar-JORIMU) is referring to the Journal Ethics Committee (COPE). Details on criteria and international standards are available on the COPE website.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards:

Authors of original research reports should provide a detailed description of the work undertaken, as well as an impartial explanation of its purpose. The underlying data should be correctly described in the document. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow replication of the work by others. Fraudulent or intentionally misleading claims constitute unethical behavior and are inappropriate.

  1. Data Access and Retention:

Authors are requested to provide the raw data in connection with an editorial review paper and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), where feasible, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

  1. Originality and Plagiarism: 

The writers should ensure that they have published fully original works and that this has been properly referenced or quoted if the writers have used the work and/or words of other people.

  1. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:

An author should not usually publish manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication which describes essentially the same study. Presenting the same manuscript to more than one publication at the same time constitutes and is illegal unethical publishing behavior.

  1. Acknowledgment of Sources:

Sufficient appreciation of others' work must always be granted. Authors may reference publications that have informed the essence of the recorded work.

  1. Authorship of the Paper:

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the concept, design, implementation, or analysis of the published research. All those who have contributed substantially should be classified as co-authors. Where others have engaged in some practical aspects of the research project, they should be remembered as contributors or identified as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all relevant co-authors and no unauthorized co-authors are included in the document and that the final version of the document has been interpreted and accepted by all co-authors, and has agreed to its publication.

  1. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

All writers should report any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscript that could be considered to affect the outcomes or understanding of their manuscript. They should reveal all sources of financial support for the project.

  1. Fundamental errors in published works:

If an author finds a serious error or inaccuracy in his / her published work, the author has to inform the journal editor or publisher immediately and to comply with the editor in retracting or correcting the article.

  1. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

If materials, processes, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use are included in the work, the author must clearly describe these in the text.


Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play:

An editor reviews manuscripts at any time for their intellectual content regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

  1. Confidentiality:
    As applicable, the editor and any editorial staff shall not reveal any details about a manuscript submitted to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher.
  2. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

Unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript must not be included in the study of an editor himself without the author's express written consent.

  1. Publication Decisions:

It is the responsibility of the editor board journal to determine which of the papers presented to the journal should be written. Such decisions must always be informed by evidence of the work in question and its relevance to researchers and readers. The editors may be guided by the policies of the editorial board of the journal and restricted by those legal requirements which are then in force concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In making this decision the editors may confer with other editors or reviewers.

  1. Review of Manuscripts:

The editor must make sure that the editor initially evaluates each manuscript for its originality. The editor should fairly and wisely organize and employ peer review. In the information for authors, editors should explain their peer review processes and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The editor should use suitable peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting persons with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.


Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and may also assist the author in improving the paper through the editorial communication with the author.

  1. Promptness:
    Any selected referee who feels unable to review the research reported in a manuscript or who knows that his prompt review will not be possible should notify the editor and apologize for the review process.
  2. Standards of Objectivity:

Reviews should be impartial. The author's critique is unfounded. With supporting reasons, referees should express their opinions clearly.

  1. Confidentiality:
    Any manuscripts submitted for review shall be considered as confidential. Except as allowed by the publisher, they are not to be displayed or shared with anyone.
  2. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Privileged information or suggestions gained by peer review shall be held confidential and shall not be used for personal gain. Reviewers do not accept publications in which they have conflicts of interest arising out of financial, contractual, or other relationships or associations with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations related to the papers.

  1. Acknowledgment of Sources:

The reviewer may classify specific published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement previously recorded of an inference, derivation, or argument should be followed by the related quotation. Every apparent resemblance or connection between the manuscript under scrutiny and any other published paper about which they have personal knowledge should also be brought to the attention of a reviewer.