Publication Ethics

JP3 (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Profesi Pendidik) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the JP3 (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Profesi Pendidik) does not tolerate plagiarism. Authors who submitted articles affirm that the manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors' submission implies that the manuscript has not been published in any language, wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers within the JP3 (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Profesi Pendidik) are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines as part of the Core Practices.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research, writing an article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities in articles published in scientific journals, editors are responsible for ensuring the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE's best practices to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the allegation's validity and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

Suppose scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are a possibility. In that case, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is requested to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of 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 evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the JP3 (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Profesi Pendidik) will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Complaints and Appeals

JP3 (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Profesi Pendidik) will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. Complaints regarding the case will be clarified with the respective person. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal's business process, i.e., editorial process, citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to the COPE guidelines.

Ethical Oversight

Suppose the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use. In that case, the author must identify these in the manuscript to comply with ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. Authors must provide legal and ethical clearance from the association or legal organization if required.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should justify this matter, whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed and objectively discuss its significance. Researchers should honestly present their results without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the journal's submission guidelines.
2. Data Access, Retention, and Reproducibility: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure they have written original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Other researchers and authors should properly acknowledge and reference relevant previous work and publications. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: An Author should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. The author is also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in multiple journals. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unacceptable publishing behavior. Various publications from a single research project should be identified, and the primary publication should be referenced.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
6. Authorship and Contributorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, others who have made a significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In contrast, those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.
7. 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.
8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Duties of the Editor

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish. They should have procedures and policies to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts: The Editor must ensure that the editor initially evaluates each manuscript for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and indicate which journal parts are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Complete Review Policy can be found here.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Upholding the principle of editorial independence and integrity is an important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and impartial as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented and consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The journal's editor will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his research without the author's written consent. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
3. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
4. Standards of Objectivity: Review submitted manuscripts objectively, and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals' instructions on the specific feedback required, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of a double-masked review, if they suspect the author's identity (s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
6. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time frame. They only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return it within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. Suppose a reviewer feels they can't complete the manuscript review within the stipulated time. In that case, this information must be communicated to the editor so the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.