Etika Publikasi

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Jurnal Responsif (RPS) is a peer-reviewed journal published twice a year by Yayasan Lentera Mandalika Berinovasi. The journal is available online via open access and in print. This statement outlines the ethical conduct expected of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The publication of articles in Jurnal Responsif (RPS) is a vital element in the development of a coherent and recognized network of knowledge. It reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles uphold and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is essential to establish standards of ethical conduct for all stakeholders in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, the publisher, and the broader community. As the publisher of Jurnal Responsif (RPS), we take our oversight role at every stage of the publication process seriously, remaining fully aware of our ethical and other responsibilities. RPS is committed to ensuring that advertisements, reprints, or any other forms of commercial revenue do not influence editorial decisions.

Publication Decisions
The editors of Jurnal Responsif (RPS) are responsible for determining which submitted articles are suitable for publication. Such decisions must always be based on the validity of the scholarly work and its significance to researchers and readers. In making decisions, editors may be guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and are bound by applicable legal requirements, including those concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may also consult with other editors or reviewers during the decision-making process.

Plagiarism Screening
Fundamentally, it is the author's obligation to submit only manuscripts that are free from plagiarism and academic malpractice. Nevertheless, the editorial team will conduct a thorough check of every article prior to publication. This involves a two-step process: first, checking the manuscript against an offline database developed by RPS, and second, performing a comprehensive search across available online databases.

Fair Treatment
Editors evaluate manuscripts solely based on their intellectual content, regardless of the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality
Editors and all editorial staff must not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to any party other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The peer-review process assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, helps the author improve the quality of their manuscript.

Timeliness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess the research presented in a manuscript, or who realize they will be unable to complete the review within the designated timeframe, must promptly notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others, except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supported by relevant arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement indicating that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Reviewers should also notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which they are aware.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through 

The review process must be kept confidential, and information obtained during the process must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers are not permitted to evaluate a manuscript if a conflict of interest arises due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.

Review Process
Every manuscript submitted to Humanika is independently evaluated by at least two reviewers through a "double-blind review" mechanism. The decision to publish, request revisions, or reject a manuscript is based on the reports and recommendations provided by these reviewers. In certain cases, the editor may send an article to a third reviewer before reaching a final decision, if deemed necessary.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting Standards
Authors of original research reports must provide an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be presented accurately within the paper. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. If the work or words of others have been used, they must be appropriately cited or referenced.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
In general, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is considered unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Work
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in the generation, conduct, or review of research, the writing of an article, or the reporting of research results. When an author is found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities concerning an article published in a scholarly journal, the Editor has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of alleged ethical misconduct, the Editor and the Editorial Board will follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) best practices to resolve complaints and address such misconduct fairly. This process includes an investigation into the allegations by the editor. Any submitted manuscript found to contain ethical misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain an ethical breach, a retraction may be issued, which will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegations and assessing whether they align with the definition of a breach of research ethics. This initial phase also includes determining whether the individual(s) making the allegations have any relevant conflicts of interest.

If a breach of scientific ethics or other substantial research misconduct is deemed possible, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. Once the response is received and evaluated, further review and the involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be sought. In cases where scientific misconduct is not indicated, clarifications, additional analyses, or both published as a letter to the editor (often accompanied by a formal notice of correction and the correction itself applied to the published article) may suffice.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions all bear a significant obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns regarding scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of those concerns, such as issuing corrections, retractions with replacement, or full retractions, Journal Responsif (RPS) will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the legitimacy, validity, and integrity of the scientific record.