Publishing Ethics

For the detailed file, click here

Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality research publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika  is committed to peer review integrity and practices the highest standards of ethical publishing. As such, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika  publication ethics encourages integrity in research and peer review process and prohibit any malpractices regarding publication.

In addition, as a journal that follows the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, it is expected of authors, reviewers and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour contained therein.

There are three roles in this Journal which have different rights and responsibilities as below,

 

Editors Rights and Responsibilities

1. Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. 

2. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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.

3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

3. Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

 

Reviewers rights and responsibilities

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika  shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2. Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. 

 

Authors' rights and responsibilities

Authors have right to submit the article in MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika . However, they should ensure their articles are approprate to the format, style, template, and research interest in Mekanika. They have rights to get feedback and clarification if their articles are rejected or need revision. The authors must be honest and do not allow to do any plagiarism.

1. Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. 

2. Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.

3. Originality and plagiarism

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

4. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. 

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

 

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

1. Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. 

2. Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions.

3. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the research and writing. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria must be acknowledged appropriately.

  • Each author must have contributed substantially to the conception, design, analysis, or interpretation of data.
  • All authors share responsibility for the integrity of the manuscript.
  • Gift, ghost, or honorary authorship is not permitted.
  • Disputes are handled according to COPE authorship dispute guidelines.
 

Comments and Complaints

1. Initial Dispute Resolution

  • Contact Authors First: Readers with concerns must attempt to resolve the issue directly with the corresponding author before contacting the journal.

  • Escalation: The Editorial Office should only be contacted if the authors are unresponsive, the issue remains unresolved, or if contacting the author is inappropriate.

2. Scope of Investigation

  • Valid Complaints: The journal investigates concerns regarding scholarly validity, ethical issues (plagiarism, fabrication, authorship), or legal aspects.

  • Invalid Complaints: Personal comments, criticisms, or disrespectful communication will not be entertained.

  • Anonymity: Anonymous complaints are accepted and investigated.

  • Confidentiality: Complainants may request confidentiality, which the journal will attempt to honor within internal procedural limits.

3. The Investigation Process

  • Authority: Investigations are coordinated by the Editorial Office with support from the Editorial Board. Final decisions regarding ethics are made by the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Standards: The process adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) principles.

  • External Consultation: The journal may consult university authorities, subject matter experts, or legal counsel if necessary.

4. Outcomes and Decisions

  • Possible Actions: Outcomes may include Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions, or published Comments/Replies.

  • Unsubstantiated Claims: If a complaint lacks evidence, it will be dismissed. Further communication will only occur if new evidence is presented.

5. Communication Protocol

  • Timeline: Investigations take time; complainants should not expect frequent updates and may only be notified once a final decision is reached.

  • Tone: Communication will be terminated if the complainant is not cordial or respectful.

  • Submission Requirements: When submitting a complaint to the Editorial Office, you must include:

    • Details of the paper.

    • Scientific/academic evidence of the fault.

    • Proof of prior correspondence with the author.

    • A statement regarding your own conflicts of interest.

Updating Published Papers

MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika recognizes our responsibility to correct scientifically relevant errors, or ethical issues that have been brought to our attention. To offer transparency regarding any changes for our authors and readers, we have the following standardized criteria in place for updates to any of our published papers.

1. Minor errors
Minor errors that do not affect readability or meaning (e.g., spelling, grammatical, spacing errors) do not qualify for an update, regardless of when or by whom the error was introduced.

2. Metadata errors
Requests to correct errors in a paper’s metadata (e.g., title, author name, abstract) can be completed, if deemed by the Editorial Office to be a reasonable request. Once approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website. Following this, all relevant indexing databases will be notified to ensure that the database versions have also been revised.

3. Corrections

Requests to correct errors in the following cases can be completed, but must also include the publication of a Correction notice:

  • Errors that could affect the scientific interpretation. For example:
    • error in a misleading section of an otherwise reliable publication
    • error in data or interpretation (that does not affect final conclusions)
  • Scientifically relevant formatting changes. For example:
    • missing or unclear figures/tables
  • Addition or removal of an author from authorship list (including addition or removal of entire affiliations)
  • Addition or removal of an entire reference
  • Addition or removal of a significant amount of text within the back matter. For example:
    • funding, author contributions, acknowledgements

Once the update request has been approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website, along with the publication of a Correction. This notice is a separate publication that links to the updated paper, but is published in the most current Issue of the journal. The Correction serves the purpose to notify all readers that a significant change has occurred to the paper, and that the revised version is now available on the website. Following these updates, all relevant indexing databases will be notified to ensure that the database versions have also been revised.

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 Agrosains : Jurnal Penelitian Agronomi.

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.
  • MEKANIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Mekanika reserves the right to notify authors’ institutions in severe cases.