Publication Ethics

JIKAP (e-ISSN: 2614-0349) is a peer-reviewed journal by Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret. This statement elucidates the ethical conduct expected from all entities publishing an article in this journal, encompassing the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is derived from the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

 The following guidelines conform with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Including an article in JIKAP is fundamental to establishing a cohesive and esteemed knowledge network. The quality of the work produced by authors and the institutions that provide support is directly manifested in this context. Peer-reviewed articles serve as a testament to the exemplification of the scientific methodology. Hence, it is imperative to establish a consensus regarding the norms and principles governing ethical conduct for all entities engaged in the publication process, including the author, editor, reviewer, publisher, and broader society. The Universitas Sebelas Maret, in its capacity as the publisher of JIKAP Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, is committed to fulfilling its obligations in overseeing the various stages of the publication process. It acknowledges and upholds its ethical obligations and other responsibilities associated with this role. The Faculty of Teacher Training and Education at the Universitas Sebelas Maret is dedicated to upholding the principle that advertising, reprinting, or any other form of commercial revenue does not influence or affect editorial decisions.

Publication Decisions:

The responsibility of determining the papers to be published in the journal lies with the editors of JIKAP. Determining the validity of the aforementioned work and its significance to researchers and readers should consistently guide such judgments. The editors are likely to adhere to the policies established by the journal's editorial board. They must comply with legal regulations concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors can consult with additional editors or reviewers during the decision-making process.

Duties of Authors:

1. Reporting Standards:

Authors of original research papers have to give a full account of their work and a fair evaluation of its importance. In addition, the submitted document must correctly explain the data it is based on. There must be enough information and citations to make it easy for others to copy the work. Inputting false information on purpose or fraudulently is unethical and totally inappropriate.

2. Data Access:

In cases deemed essential, authors are obligated to furnish the main data about the manuscript for the purpose of editorial evaluation.

3. Originality and Plagiarism:

The authors must verify the authenticity and originality of their published works. If the authors have incorporated the ideas or language of other individuals, the author must acknowledge and provide references to the original sources appropriately.

4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:

Publishing manuscripts that are essentially identical in nature in multiple journals or primary publications is considered unethical and unacceptable publishing conduct.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources:

It is imperative to ensure appropriate acknowledgement is given for the work of others. The writers must include citations for the articles that have influenced the work's attributes.

6. Authorship of the Paper:

Authorship, which means naming specific people as co-authors, should only go to people who contributed to the study's idea, design, execution, or interpretation. On the other hand, contributors or co-authors should only be named or noted for those who work on the substantive parts of a study project. It is up to the corresponding author to make sure that the work has only qualified co-authors. These people have seen and agreed to the final version of the work and its submission for publication.

7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

Any financial or other significant potential conflicts of interest that could be construed as influencing the outcomes of their manuscript's interpretation must be disclosed by all Authors. In addition, it is imperative that all research funding be disclosed.

8. Fundamental errors in published works:

Authors who discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in assessing whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is required.

9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

The publication's author must state this clearly if any potentially harmful materials, methods, or equipment are used in the research.

Duties of Editors:

1. Fair Play:

A manuscript's intellectual substance should be evaluated independently of the authors' identities, including but not limited to gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, and political beliefs.

2. Confidentiality:

If applicable, the editor and any editorial staff are obligated to keep confidential any and all material discovered in the manuscript that has been sent out to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher.

3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

Editors may not utilize unpublished material disclosed in the submitted work without the authors' permission.

4. Publication Decisions:

That decision about which study papers to publish lies with the editorial board of JIKAP. In the meantime, decisions should be based on the study's validity and importance to researchers and readers. The journal's editing policy and constitutional rules about libel, plagiarism, and breach of copyright can help the editors decide what to write. In addition, the editor may talk to other editors or reviewers before choosing.

5. Review of Manuscripts:

The editor is responsible for ensuring that the validity of each manuscript's content has been checked and for setting up and using peer review in a fair and smart way. The editor should also explain to the writers how peer review works and list the parts of the article reviewed by peers. Editors must choose influential peer reviewers for papers being considered for release by weeding out those without enough expertise and conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review helps the editor decide what to publish, and editorial discussions help the authors improve their work.

2. Promptness:

If a chosen reviewer doesn't think they can properly look over the study work in a manuscript or know they can't do a review right away, they need to let the editor know and not continue the review process.

 3. Standards of Objectivity:

Reviews must be objective, constructive, and supported by reasons. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

4. Confidentiality:

All submitted works must be handled as confidential documents. Also, no one else should see or look at them unless the editor gives the green light.

5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Individuals are obligated to keep any and all information gleaned from peer review in confidence and not use it for personal gain. In addition, reviewers are excused from evaluating papers in which they have a conflict of interest because of their ties to the authors, companies, or organizations.

6. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers should distinguish between related but uncited works in the literature. The proper reference should be used when a previously documented interpretation, conclusion, or statement is used in a description. Last but not least, reviewers must also draw the editor's attention to any similarities they see between the submitted paper and any previously published publications on the same topic.

Human Subject Protection

JIKAP mandates that all research using human subjects (e.g., surveys, sensory panels, or other involvement) adhere to all applicable laws, rules, and policies (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration) governing the use of human beings in research. The authors should specify that institutional review board (IRB) or comparable approval was acquired before the start of the trial, as well as the name of the IRB that was approved. According to local authority policy, the human object identification as a respondent (information source) is safely protected.

Additional integrity and accountability requirements

These requirements also apply to special issues. Fabricated reviews, reviewer impersonation, collusion, coercive citation, and misleading manipulation of research images are prohibited. An editor with a competing interest must not handle the affected submission. Editors, reviewers, and staff must not exploit unpublished findings, and commercial or institutional pressure must not determine editorial decisions. Authors must disclose related manuscripts, earlier dissemination, funding, relevant competing interests, and permitted generative-AI assistance. Necessary permissions for reused material must be obtained.

Data, reproducibility, and research ethics

Authors must describe methods sufficiently for informed assessment and retain the evidence supporting their findings. A Data Availability Statement should explain where supporting data and code can be accessed or why access is restricted. Ethical or privacy restrictions must be respected; justified restrictions should not be presented as unrestricted availability. Figures must faithfully represent their underlying evidence.

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

See the separate policies on Authorship and Contributorship, Conflict of Interest, AI Tools Usage Policy, Allegation of Research Misconduct, Complaints and Appeals, Post-publication Discussions, and Correction and Retraction for the corresponding requirements and procedures.

Author Fees

Author Fees

Article submission and Publication in JIKAP is free of charge.

Article Publication: 0.00 (IDR). No fees are incurred for article processing, submission, or reviewing the articles.

Libraries/Individuals can read and download any full-text articles free of charge.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal requires original work and proper acknowledgment of others’ ideas, wording, data, and images. Unattributed copying, misleading paraphrase, and presenting another person’s work as one’s own are unacceptable. Permission, where required, is separate from the obligation to cite the source.

JIKAP checks all submitted manuscripts using Turnitin before editorial evaluation. Further checks may be conducted during revision and before publication. A similarity score is a screening aid, not proof of originality or plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, extent, attribution, and context of overlap rather than treating any percentage as a universal rule.

Authors must disclose substantial overlap with their own earlier work and related submissions. Reuse must be justified, attributed, and consistent with publication and permission requirements. Preprints or other earlier dissemination should be disclosed for assessment under the journal’s applicable policy.

Suspected plagiarism is assessed fairly, with an opportunity for explanation. Depending on the findings, action may include revision, rejection, correction, retraction, or institutional referral. AI-assisted content remains subject to the same originality and attribution requirements.

JIKAP similarity screening thresholds

• Below 15%: the manuscript may proceed to content assessment, subject to editorial examination of the overlap and any required revision.
• 15% to 30%: the manuscript is returned for revision to address inappropriate overlap before further consideration.
• Above 30%: the manuscript is declined at initial screening; authors may revise it substantially and submit it as a new manuscript.

These thresholds guide initial similarity screening. They do not establish the percentage of plagiarism or guarantee acceptance. Properly attributed quotations, references, and other legitimate overlap require contextual assessment. Serious plagiarism may warrant action even when the overall similarity score is low.

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.

Article Withdrawal Policy

This policy governs the withdrawal of unpublished manuscripts, i.e., manuscripts still in the pre-publication stage (from submission until the article is formally published). It is distinct from the Retraction policy, which applies to already-published articles.

Submission to JIKAP is regarded as a statement of the authors' commitment that the manuscript has not been previously published, is not under consideration by any other journal, and that the authors are willing to see the entire editorial process through to completion.

1.     Withdrawal by authors. Authors may request a withdrawal by submitting a formal written request to the Editor via the journal email or the online submission system (OJS). The request must be agreed upon by all authors and state the reason for withdrawal.

2.     Withdrawal before the review process. A withdrawal requested before the manuscript enters peer review may generally be approved without conditions or consequences.

3.     Withdrawal during the review process. A withdrawal requested after the manuscript has entered peer review is strongly discouraged, as it involves the time and effort of the editors and reviewers. Withdrawal at this stage may only proceed with the Editor's approval and for justifiable reasons (e.g., a fundamental error in the manuscript, an authorship dispute, or other legitimate grounds).

4.     Withdrawal after acceptance. Once a manuscript has been accepted, withdrawal is permitted only under exceptional circumstances and with the Editor's approval. A mere change of mind by the authors is not a valid ground at this stage.

5.     Temporary suspension of submission rights. Authors who withdraw a manuscript after peer review has commenced or after acceptance, without justifiable reasons, may have their right to submit new manuscripts to JIKAP suspended for 6 (six) months. This suspension is administrative in nature, recorded internally by the editorial team, and is not announced publicly. JIKAP does not impose any withdrawal fee, in line with the journal's free-of-charge policy.

6.     Prohibition of duplicate submission. Authors may not submit the same manuscript to another journal before receiving a formal withdrawal decision from JIKAP. Simultaneous or duplicate submission constitutes a breach of publication ethics.

7.     Final decision. A manuscript is considered officially withdrawn only after the author receives a withdrawal confirmation letter from the Editor. Until such confirmation is issued, the manuscript remains part of JIKAP's editorial process.

8.     Withdrawal by the Editor/Publisher. JIKAP reserves the right to withdraw or cancel a manuscript at the pre-publication stage if there are indications of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, research ethics violations, or other legal breaches.

FAQ

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.

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.

AI Tools Usage Policy

AI-assisted tools do not qualify as authors and cannot accept responsibility for a manuscript. Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain accountable for their work. Use of AI does not excuse inaccuracies, invented references, plagiarism, undisclosed interests, or breaches of confidentiality.

Use by authors

AI tools may assist language editing, grammar correction, translation, and readability under meaningful human supervision. They must not replace the authors’ intellectual contribution or be used to fabricate scientific content, data, images, analyses, or references. Authors must verify every claim, quotation, citation, and output before submission.

Report relevant generative-AI assistance at submission and in a clearly identified disclosure in the manuscript. State the tool and version where available, the purpose of use, and how the output was checked. Assistance used in research methods, including data processing, must also be described in the Methods section with enough detail for evaluation and reproducibility. Routine non-generative spelling or reference-formatting functions do not normally require a separate declaration.

Authors must protect personal information, confidential data, and third-party rights. They must not upload protected material to a service unless that use is authorized and its confidentiality arrangements are suitable. Generative AI must not create or alter images presented as research evidence; legitimate image processing must be transparent and must not misrepresent the underlying observations.

Use by reviewers

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, extracts, figures, or review reports to a public or third-party AI service where confidentiality cannot be assured. An author’s decision to use AI does not authorize reviewers to disclose the manuscript. AI cannot substitute for expert assessment or a reviewer’s accountable judgment.

A reviewer must seek prior editorial permission before using AI in the assessment and disclose any permitted assistance. The reviewer remains responsible for checking the review’s accuracy and fairness. Suspected misuse should be reported privately rather than asserted on the basis of an automated AI-detection score alone.

Use by editors and editorial staff

Editors and 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 integrity determination. Material misuse will be assessed under the journal’s relevant ethics and publication-record procedures.

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

JIKAP (Jurnal Informasi dan Komunikasi Administrasi Perkantoran), e-ISSN 2614-0349, is an institutional journal of Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS). It is published by the Office Administration Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia. The editorial team and its affiliations are listed on the journal website, and the official Contact page provides the channel for editorial correspondence. Changes in ownership or management must be communicated transparently.

The owner and publisher are responsible for the journal’s 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 be independent of commercial, institutional, political, or personal pressure.

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