Editor and Reviewer Ethics

Editor Ethics

  1. Neutrality, editors are neutral in selecting, and must be objective and fair to each author who submits their article to the editor. In addition, editors are prohibited from being discriminatory toward the author, whether based on gender, ethnicity, religion, race, inter-group, or nationality.
  2. Reporting, editors report the results of the manuscript selection and review clearly and precisely to the author with due regard to the accuracy, completeness, and clarity of reporting the research's result and development, including editing techniques and the use of guidelines for publishing and writing the manuscripts.
  3. Communicative, editors communicate effectively and efficiently in the journal publishing process. Any suggestions and comments from authors, reviewers, and journal managers must be responded clearly, honestly, and transparently.
  4. Justice, editors distribute the manuscripts fairly to the members of the editorial team and reviewers based on their competencies.
  5. Professional, the editor works professionally based on his duties and responsibilities. Editors must understand every policy related to journal publishing. In addition, editors ensure that every manuscripts has gone through a correct, fair, and objective editorials and review process.
  6. Responsibility, the editor is fully responsible for the success of the publication of the journal. In addition, editors ensure that every published journal articles is new written work that is not plagiarism and provides benefits for those read and extract the journal.
  7. Disclosure of conflict of interest, editors uphold copyright and privacy with each other to prevent conflicts of interest. However, in the event of a conflict of interest with another party, the editor must resolve it reasonably and prudently.

 

Reviewer Ethics

  1. Neutrality, reviewers are honest, objective, unbiased, independent, and only side with scientific truth. The manuscript review process is done professionally without distinguishing the author's background. Reviewers are prohibited from conductiong reviews of written works involving themselves, either directly or indirectly.
  2. Professional, reviewers are required to be critical and experince in assessing the content of a written works, namely by their expertise or scientific fields, be open about new things, keep things that are being evaluated confidential, don't take personal advantage of the writted work being assessed, and have the willingness to improve the written work they are currently studying. The reviewers has the right to refuse the manuscript review if the paper he studies doesn't come from his field of expertise. Reviewers can provide recommendations to other more competent reviewers in accordace with the scientific scope of the publication.
  3. Quality assurance, reviewers have the task of assisting editors in improving the quality of the papers they study. Reviewers study articles substantively instead of studying grammar, punctuation, and typos. Reviewers are required to uphold the basic principles and scientific analysis in the process of reviewing a written work. Reviewers work based on the principles of truth, novelty, and authenticity, prioritize the benefits of written works for the development of science, technology, and innovation, and understand the impact of writing on the development of science.
  4. Timeliness, reviewers review the manuscript and respond to editors quickly, expected to be timely in reviewing the manuscript. If the review time is deemed insufficient, the review must notify the editor with an apparent reason for publishing the journal's discipline and regularity.
  5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest, reviewers uphold copyright and privacy with each other to avoid conflicts of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest with another party, the reviewer must resolve it fairly and prudently.