Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed "Arsitektura: Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan" is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Publication decisions

The editor of the "Arsitektura: Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan" is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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 in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

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.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

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 in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author 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

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. 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 study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

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.

Intellectual Property

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts do not infringe on copyright, trademarks, or any intellectual property rights of others.

Arsitektura : Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan respects Creative Commons licenses and open-access policies.

Authors holds the non-exclusive copyright and publication rights of all published articles.

AI Tool Usage Policy in Article Preparation

This policy provides guidance on the responsible and transparent use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools during manuscript preparation, in line with COPE, ICMJE, and WAME ethical standards.

1. Purpose and Scope

Applies to all authors who use AI tools for writing, analysis, or image generation in preparing manuscripts submitted to Arsitektura : Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan.

2. Principles

• Transparency: AI use must be disclosed clearly in the manuscript.
• Accountability: Authors remain fully responsible for all content, including that generated with AI assistance.
• Human Oversight: AI-generated outputs must be verified and edited by humans before submission.
• Originality: AI use must not result in plagiarism or data manipulation.

3. Acceptable Uses

• Grammar and language editing.
• Formatting or reference checking.
• Statistical or data visualization assistance (verified by authors).
• Idea generation or summarization for conceptual clarity.

4. Unacceptable Uses

• Generating full text without author verification.
• Fabricating data, references, or images.
• Using AI to manipulate data or peer review outcomes.
• Listing AI tools as authors.

5. Disclosure Requirement

Authors must include an AI disclosure statement, for example:

“Portions of this manuscript were assisted by ChatGPT (OpenAI) for language editing. The authors reviewed and verified all AI-generated content.”

If no AI tools were used, authors should declare:  “The authors declare that no artificial intelligence (AI) tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.”

6. Screening and Enforcement

• Manuscripts may be screened for AI-generated content.
• Undisclosed use may result in rejection or retraction.
• Arsitektura : Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan reserves the right to notify authors’ institutions in severe cases.

7. Summary of Author Responsibilities

References: COPE (2023), Elsevier (2023), Springer Nature (2023), WAME (2023), ICMJE (2024).

Additional Requirements for Research Ethics, Data, and Editorial Integrity

Authors must distinguish evidence from interpretation, acknowledge limitations, and faithfully represent data, images, drawings, and other research materials. Fabrication, falsification, and misleading image manipulation are prohibited. A Data Availability Statement should identify where supporting data, code, and other evidence can be accessed or explain justified restrictions arising from privacy, consent, confidentiality, or third-party rights.

Where required, research involving humans, identifiable personal information, or animals must receive appropriate ethical approval before it begins. Authors must identify the approving body and approval reference, or explain an authorized exemption. Applicable consent, confidentiality, welfare, and permission requirements must be met. Identifiable personal material must not be published without the necessary consent.

Editors with relevant competing interests must not handle the affected submission. The publisher must support independent editorial decisions, and fees, sponsorship, or advertising must not determine acceptance. Special issues remain subject to normal editorial oversight and ethical standards. Fabricated reviews, impersonation, collusion, and coercive citation are prohibited. Reviewers must not involve another person in an assessment without prior editorial permission.

Additional AI Disclosure and Research-Evidence Requirements

The AI disclosure should identify the tool and version where available, its purpose, and how human authors checked its output. AI assistance used in research methods, including data processing or analysis, must also be described in the Methods section with sufficient detail for evaluation and reproducibility. Generative AI must not create or alter images presented as empirical research evidence. Conceptual or illustrative AI-generated images must be clearly identified and must not be represented as observed conditions, measured findings, or authentic documentary records.

AI Use by Reviewers, Editors, and Editorial Staff

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, extracts, figures, or review reports to a public or third-party AI service where confidentiality cannot be assured. An author’s use of AI does not authorize disclosure of the manuscript by a reviewer. Reviewers must seek prior editorial permission for AI assistance in an assessment and disclose any permitted use. AI cannot replace expert assessment or accountable human judgment.

Editors and editorial staff are bound by equivalent confidentiality, privacy, and accountability requirements. Any authorized AI-supported workflow must have appropriate safeguards and human oversight. AI must not make the final acceptance, rejection, or research-integrity determination. Suspected misuse must be assessed using relevant evidence and an opportunity for explanation; an automated AI-detection score alone is not sufficient to establish misconduct. Any action, including rejection or retraction, must follow the journal’s relevant ethics and publication-record procedures and be proportionate to the substantiated concern.

Plagiarism Check

Authors should submit only original work that is not plagiarized and not has been published or being considered elsewhere. Turnitin or other software will be used by the editorial team to check for similarities 15% of a submitted manuscript with existing literature.

Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited

Interpretation of Similarity Reports

The journal’s existing 15% similarity criterion remains applicable. A similarity score is a screening aid, not proof of originality or plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, extent, distribution, attribution, and context of overlap, including quotations, standard terminology, and necessary methodological descriptions. A low similarity score does not establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism.

Attribution, Permissions, and Related Work

Authors must properly acknowledge ideas, wording, data, images, drawings, and other materials obtained from others. Necessary permissions are separate from the obligation to cite a source. Authors must disclose substantial overlap with their own earlier work, related submissions, preprints, or other prior dissemination so that originality and justified reuse can be assessed. AI-assisted content remains subject to the same originality and attribution requirements.

Assessment and Possible Actions

Suspected plagiarism will be assessed fairly, with an opportunity for the authors to explain and provide relevant records. Depending on the evidence and seriousness, action may include clarification, revision, rejection, correction, retraction, or referral to the relevant institution. Concerns about published work are handled under the journal’s Allegation of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated peer review, or other serious breaches may be raised before or after publication. Reports should be sent through the journal’s official editorial contact, identifying the submission or article, the concern, available evidence, and any relevant competing interests. A sufficiently specific anonymous report may also be assessed.

An editor or independent representative will examine the evidence and any conflicts affecting the assessment. The authors will normally be invited to explain the concern and provide relevant records. Independent specialists or the authors’ institutions may be consulted. Institutions investigate the conduct of their researchers; the journal determines the appropriate action concerning its submissions and publications.

The response will reflect the evidence and seriousness of the problem. Possible outcomes include clarification, further review, rejection, a correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. Confidential information will be shared only as necessary for fair assessment. Withdrawal does not automatically close an unresolved integrity case. Complaints about case handling follow Complaints and Appeals.

Complaints and Appeals

Complaints may concern editorial conduct, peer review, or publication procedures. An appeal challenges a specific editorial decision. Both should be submitted through the journal’s official editorial contact with the article or manuscript identifier, reasons, supporting evidence, and relevant competing interests. Good-faith complainants will not be penalized for raising a concern; credible anonymous complaints may be considered.

An unconflicted editor or independent representative will review the matter. A person whose conduct is challenged must not decide their own case. The assessment may include the original decision, review reports, responses from those involved, and independent advice. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or reversal of the decision.

The journal will communicate its reasoned outcome to the relevant parties while protecting confidentiality as far as practicable. Any submission restriction must be proportionate, justified, time-limited, and open to appeal. Research-integrity allegations are handled under Allegation of Research Misconduct.

Post-publication Discussions

Readers may submit evidence-based comments, questions, or criticisms about published articles through the editorial office. Contributions should identify the article, explain the issue clearly, cite supporting material where appropriate, and disclose competing interests. Discussion should address the work rather than attack individuals.

Editors assess correspondence for relevance, accuracy, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. They may edit accepted contributions for clarity or length and moderate online comments where that facility exists. Authors will normally be invited to answer substantive criticism. Accepted comments and responses may be linked to the article.

Scholarly disagreement does not itself establish an error or misconduct. Concerns affecting reliability or ethical compliance will be examined under the relevant investigation and publication-record policies rather than treated solely as debate.

Correction and Retraction

Authors and readers should report substantive errors or integrity concerns through the editorial office. The journal assesses whether clarification, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction is necessary to protect readers and the scholarly record.

Corrections

A correction addresses a material error or omission when the central findings remain reliable. The notice identifies the article, explains the changes, and links to the corrected record. Changes must be transparent, dated, and distinguishable from the original version; earlier versions should be preserved. Author-originated and production-originated errors may be identified as a corrigendum or erratum, respectively.

Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may alert readers to a substantial unresolved issue when an investigation is incomplete or reliable conclusions cannot yet be reached. It is not a finding of misconduct. The notice will be updated or followed by another notice when sufficient information becomes available.

Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, or falsification; when an article involves plagiarism or unjustified redundant publication; when material was used without authorization or serious rights violations occurred; when research was unethical; when peer review was compromised; or when a major undisclosed competing interest materially affected interpretation or editorial assessment.

A retraction notice identifies the affected article, who is retracting it, and the evidence-based reasons. It distinguishes honest error from established misconduct where possible. The notice and article will be linked, and the article will ordinarily remain accessible with prominent retraction labeling. Authors will be consulted, but their agreement is not required for justified action. Removal is exceptional and requires a compelling reason.

Conflict of Interest

A competing interest is a relationship or activity that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartial judgment. It may be financial or non-financial, including employment, consultancy, funding, shareholdings, patents, personal relationships, recent collaboration, academic rivalry, or strongly held interests relevant to the work. Disclosure does not by itself establish wrongdoing.

Authors must disclose relevant interests at submission, update them when necessary, and identify funding and the funder’s role. An explicit statement is required when no relevant competing interests exist. Appropriate author disclosures will accompany the published article.

Reviewers must disclose relevant interests before accepting an invitation and decline or stop reviewing when impartiality cannot be maintained. Editors and staff must withdraw from affected decisions; submissions involving an editor require independent handling. The publisher must not allow its financial interests to determine editorial outcomes.

Newly discovered interests will be assessed for their effect on the work and the decision-making process. A published disclosure may be corrected; more serious concerns may require further investigation or other action under Correction and Retraction.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship recognizes substantial scholarly contribution and carries responsibility for the published work. All listed authors must meet all four criteria below, and everyone who meets them must be included:

1. A substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data.
2. Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for the work and to help ensure that questions about its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative support, or language editing alone does not justify authorship. Contributors who do not meet every criterion should be acknowledged, with their permission and a description of their contribution. Gift, honorary, guest, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. Author order must be agreed by the authors, not imposed by the editorial office.

Corresponding author and accountability

The corresponding author manages communication, confirms author approval, and coordinates required disclosures and responses. This role does not remove the responsibilities of other authors. Authors should identify who can verify the supporting records and answer questions about the integrity of the work. Where a guarantor is designated, that person accepts responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole.

Contributor roles

A contribution statement should identify each author’s actual work, using relevant roles from the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). One person may have several roles, and several people may share a role. A role designation does not by itself establish eligibility for authorship.

Changes in authorship and disputes

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must explain the reason and include written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed. The journal may pause processing while a request is assessed. Changes after publication require a transparent notice where approved.

Editors do not adjudicate unresolved disputes about who deserves authorship. Such disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions, and consideration or publication may be paused while they are resolved. Undisclosed contributors and inappropriate authorship may also require an integrity investigation.

Ownership and Management

Arsitektura: Jurnal Ilmiah Arsitektur dan Lingkungan Binaan is an institutional journal of Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS), its publisher and institutional sponsor. The journal is managed through the Architecture Study Program, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Sebelas Maret. Current editors and their affiliations are listed on the Editorial Team page. The official editorial office is located at Jl. Ir. Sutami No. 36A, Kentingan, Surakarta 57126, Indonesia, and may be contacted at arsitektura@ft.uns.ac.id. Further details are available on the Contact page.

The publisher provides the organizational and publishing framework. The editor-in-chief and delegated editors are responsible for scholarly assessment, reviewer selection, editorial decisions, and the integrity of published content. Editorial authority must remain independent of commercial, institutional, political, and personal pressure. Editors with relevant competing interests must withdraw from affected decisions.

Funding, publication charges, advertising, and sponsorship must be disclosed transparently where applicable. Payment or a funding relationship does not guarantee acceptance or privileged treatment. Changes in institutional ownership or management must be communicated transparently. Concerns about ownership or management may be raised through the official editorial contact; a complaint involving a decision-maker must be assessed independently.