Publication Ethics and Malpractice
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Penerbit Akademia Baru (Akademia Baru Press) is committed to meeting and upholding the highest
standards of publication ethics whereas the publication malpractice is strictly prohibited by all possible
measure. Our responsibility is to publish original work of value to the intellectual community in the best
possible form and to the highest possible standards. We expect similar standards from our reviewers and
authors. Honesty, originality and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity and
confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve
our goal. We endorse and behave in accordance with the codes of conduct and international standards
established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are
required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines. Below is a summary of our key expectations of
editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.
Author’s Responsibilities
Reporting Standards
Authors should report their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate
data manipulation. Authors should provide sufficient details on the method and references to allow others to replicate the work.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than
one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
All authors should disclose the sources of funding for the research reported in the manuscript.
Authorship of the Paper
Authors should ensure that authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to
the research works and reporting. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as
co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest
that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of
financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the
author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to
retract or correct the paper.
Reviewer's Responsibilities
Peer Review Policy
Each paper is first reviewed by the editor and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent
to two referees for double-blind peer review. Decisions regarding the publication of a manuscript will
be based on the Board's recommendations. Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's Editorial
Board are subjected to the same review procedure.
Contribution to Editorial Decision
The reviewers of the journal assist the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial
communications; the reviewers assist the authors in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels inadequately qualified to review the assigned manuscript or knows that
its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review
process.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat the received manuscript as confidential document. The manuscript must not be
shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers should express their views objectively and clearly with supporting arguments. There shall
be no personal criticism of the author.
Acknowledgement of Source
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any
statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be
accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also should notify the editor if there is any
substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published
paper of which they have personal knowledge.
