Publication Ethics

The Recidive Journal is a peer reviewed journal published by the Faculty of Law, Sebelas Maret University. This statement describes the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal, including authors, editor-in-chief, and the Editorial Board. , peer reviewers and publishers. This statement is based on COPE's Guidelines for Best Practice for Journal Editors.

Author:

1.Authors must ensure that they have written original works.

2.The author must ensure that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere.

3.Authors are responsible for editing the language before submitting articles.

4.Authors who submit their work to a journal for publication because the original article confirms that the submitted work represents the author's contributions and has not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from another work without explicit citing.

5.Authors must notify Recidive Journal of any conflicts of interest.

6.Authors must report any errors they find in their manuscripts to the Recidive Journal.

7.Any works or words from other authors, contributors, or sources must be credited and referenced as appropriate.

8.An author agrees to a license agreement before submitting articles.

9.All articles must be submitted using an online submission procedure.

Editorial Board:

1. The Editorial Board must ensure fair peer-review of articles submitted for publication.

2. The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest.

3. Editorial Board must ensure that all information related to submitted manuscripts is kept  confidential before publication.

4 .Editorial Boards must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.

5. The Chief Editor will coordinate the work of the editors.

Reviewers:

1.The reviewer evaluated the manuscript based on content regardless of the author's ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious beliefs, or political philosophy.

2.Reviewers must ensure that all information related to submitted manuscripts is kept confidential and must report to the Editor in Chief if they become aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the part of the author.

3.Reviewers must evaluate the submitted work objectively and clearly present their opinion on the work in a clear manner on the review form.

4.Reviewers must keep information relating to the manuscript secret.

5.Reviewers who feel ineligible to review the research reported in the manuscript or find that a quick review is not possible should notify the Editor in Chief and excuse himself from the review process.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

Recidive: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) tools may support certain aspects of scholarly writing and editorial work. However, the use of AI must remain transparent, responsible, and consistent with academic integrity, confidentiality, authorship, copyright, data integrity, and publication ethics.

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully responsible for all scholarly, editorial, and ethical decisions. AI tools cannot assume authorship, accountability, or responsibility for published scholarly work.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Authors

Use of Assistive AI Tools

Authors may use assistive AI tools to improve language clarity, grammar, spelling, readability, formatting, or structural presentation of a manuscript. Disclosure of such assistive use is not required, provided that the tools do not generate substantive scholarly content or materially alter the intellectual contribution of the manuscript.

Examples of assistive AI tools include spelling checkers, grammar correction systems, language-editing applications, and AI-assisted proofreading tools.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, meaning, and scholarly quality of all content submitted to Recidive: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan, regardless of whether assistive AI tools have been used.

Use of Generative AI

The use of generative AI tools capable of producing substantive original content, including text, images, code, data interpretations, analyses, or references, must be disclosed at the time of manuscript submission.

Such disclosure allows the editorial team to assess the nature and extent of AI involvement and to determine whether its use is consistent with the journal's academic and ethical standards.

Generative AI tools must not be treated or cited as authoritative or primary scholarly sources. Where AI-generated text, images, code, analyses, or other material has been used, authors are responsible for independently verifying the resulting content and ensuring its originality, accuracy, relevance, and compliance with applicable ethical and scholarly standards.

Authors using generative AI are expected to comply with the following requirements:

• Disclosure: Identify the AI model, platform, or tool used and explain how it contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. Where appropriate, this information should be provided in the Methods section, Acknowledgments, or another relevant disclosure section.
• Verification: Independently verify and, where necessary, correct all AI-generated statements, facts, interpretations, analyses, quotations, references, statistical information, and other substantive content.
• Originality: Review AI-generated material for potential inappropriate textual overlap or plagiarism, recognizing that generative AI systems may reproduce or closely resemble existing language from unidentified sources.
• Accuracy and Hallucination Control: Ensure that the manuscript contains no fabricated, misleading, or hallucinated information, including inaccurate factual claims, invented laws or regulations, fabricated judicial decisions, non-existent legal provisions, fictitious criminal cases, false citations, non-existent publications, or unsupported legal interpretations.
• Data and Evidence Integrity: Authors must not use AI-generated or AI-modified data, statistics, evidence, quotations, legal documents, judicial decisions, case records, or research findings in a manner that misrepresents their actual source, provenance, or validity.
• Authorship: AI systems, including ChatGPT and similar platforms, must not be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot meet the requirements of scholarly authorship or assume responsibility for the integrity of a published work.

Failure to disclose substantive generative AI use, or submission of material that relies excessively on unverified AI-generated content, may result in requests for clarification or revision, rejection of the manuscript, or other appropriate editorial action at any stage of the editorial and peer-review process.

Guidance for Reviewers and Editors

The use of AI tools during editorial and peer-review processes requires particular caution because submitted manuscripts are confidential scholarly documents and may contain unpublished ideas, research findings, datasets, legal documents, criminal case records, personal information, copyrighted materials, or other sensitive content.

Assistive Use

Reviewers may use assistive AI tools solely to improve the grammar, clarity, readability, or language quality of review comments that they have independently prepared.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, substance, tone, professional quality, and integrity of all comments submitted to the journal.

Editors may use AI-assisted tools for limited administrative purposes, such as supporting the identification of potential reviewers, organizing editorial information, or improving non-substantive editorial communication, provided that manuscript confidentiality, personal data protection, editorial independence, and other applicable ethical requirements are preserved.

Prohibited Uses

Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI in ways that compromise confidentiality, independent academic judgment, or the integrity of the editorial process. The following activities are prohibited:

• Using AI tools to generate substantive peer-review reports;
• Using AI tools to summarize, evaluate, or analyze confidential unpublished manuscript content;
• Using AI tools to generate substantive editorial assessments, recommendations, or editorial decisions;
• Uploading complete or substantial portions of unpublished manuscripts, supplementary files, research data, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial materials to external AI platforms where confidentiality, data retention, training use, or data reuse cannot be adequately controlled; and
• Relying on AI-generated output as a substitute for independent scholarly judgment by reviewers or editors.

If potential misuse of AI within the editorial or peer-review process is identified, the matter should be reported confidentially to the editorial team for appropriate investigation and action.

Undisclosed or Inappropriate Use of Generative AI

Undisclosed, misleading, or unethical use of generative AI may constitute a publication-integrity concern and may be investigated by Recidive: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan.

Depending on the nature, extent, and severity of the issue, editorial action may include:

• A request for clarification or disclosure;
• A request for manuscript revision;
• Additional editorial or ethical review;
• Rejection of the manuscript; or
• Appropriate post-publication corrective action.

Where a published article is subsequently found to contain undisclosed generative AI content associated with fabricated, plagiarized, materially inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise unethical material, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate post-publication notice in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

Accountability Statement

Human authors, reviewers, and editors remain responsible for the integrity, accuracy, reliability, confidentiality, and ethical standards of scholarly publishing.

Artificial intelligence cannot assume authorship, intellectual responsibility, accountability, or editorial authority. The use of AI must therefore remain transparent, proportionate, ethical, and consistent with accepted standards of scholarly communication and publication integrity.

Recidive: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan reserves the right to update this policy in response to developments in artificial intelligence technology, scholarly publishing standards, and publication-ethics guidance.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship is reserved for individuals who have made substantial and meaningful contributions to a manuscript. These contributions must go beyond routine or administrative tasks and involve intellectual input at various stages of the research process. To be listed as an author, one must meet all of the following conditions: (1) significantly contributed to the study’s conception or design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; (2) participated actively in drafting the manuscript, providing substantial revisions, or critically reviewing it for important intellectual content; (3) approved the final version of the manuscript for submission and publication; and (4) agreed to be accountable for the integrity of the entire work, including resolving any questions related to its accuracy or ethical conduct.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that every listed co-author fulfills these criteria and that no inappropriate authors are included. All co-authors must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors are discouraged after submission and will only be considered under special circumstances. In such cases, the corresponding author must provide a detailed justification and written consent from all affected authors. Once a manuscript is accepted, changes in authorship are subject to editorial approval and may be declined if appropriate documentation is not provided. If a change is required post-publication, it will be handled through a formal correction notice.

Contribution Details

To enhance transparency in scholarly publishing, the journal encourages authors to clearly outline the specific contributions made by each co-author. This should be done using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, which provides standardized terms for different roles such as conceptualization, methodology, software development, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Each author’s name should be followed by the roles they performed, and this contribution statement will appear alongside the published article. At least one author should serve as the guarantor who accepts full responsibility for the integrity of the work from start to finish.

In addition to named authors, individuals who contributed to the project in other capacities such as through technical support, funding acquisition, general supervision, or scholarly discussion should be acknowledged in a dedicated Acknowledgments section. Their full name and affiliation must be included, and authors are responsible for notifying them and obtaining their consent to be listed. If groups or institutions contributed to the study in a collective capacity (e.g., clinical investigators or supporting institutions), their role should be briefly described.

Any assistance from AI-based tools (such as large language models used for drafting or editing text) must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript. While these tools may assist the writing process, the human authors remain fully responsible for ensuring the originality, accuracy, and ethical compliance of the content.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct involves fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in conducting, reviewing, or reporting research and writing articles. When authors are found guilty of such misconduct or other serious irregularities in published articles, Editors must maintain the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

In suspected misconduct cases, Editors and the Editorial Board will follow COPE's best practices to resolve the complaint and address the issue fairly. This includes an investigation by the Editors. Manuscripts found to contain misconduct will be rejected. If a published paper is found to have misconduct, a retraction will be issued and linked to the original article.

The first step is to validate the allegation and assess if it aligns with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also includes determining if the complainants have any conflicts of interest.

If there is a possibility of scientific misconduct or significant research irregularities, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is asked to provide a detailed response on behalf of all coauthors. After evaluating the response, further review and expert involvement (e.g., statistical reviewers) may be necessary. If it appears unlikely that misconduct occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or corrections published as letters to the editor, along with a correction notice, may suffice.

Institutions are expected to conduct thorough investigations of scientific misconduct allegations. Authors, journals, and institutions must ensure the scientific record's accuracy. By appropriately addressing concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the journal will uphold the scientific record's validity and integrity.

Plagiarism Policy

We maintain a strong commitment to academic integrity and uphold the highest standards of ethical writing.

We are strictly against plagiarism in any form. All submitted manuscripts will be screened for textual similarities using plagiarism detection tools. However, authors are strongly encouraged to conduct a self-assessment of their manuscripts prior to submission to ensure originality and proper citation of all sources.

• Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% will be automatically rejected without further consideration.
• This threshold excludes properly cited references and standard terminologies but includes all forms of unattributed copying.

Conflict of Interest

This journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of transparency and ethical conduct in academic publishing. This policy provides definitions of conflicts of interest and describes procedures for addressing conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, editors, the journal, and the publisher, whether identified prior to or after publication. The journal adheres to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Definition of Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or entity has financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships or interests that could influence or appear to influence their objectivity, integrity, or decision-making in the context of research, review, editorial work, or publication processes.

2. Identification of Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the publication process including authors, reviewers, editors, and others are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest relevant to the work they are submitting, reviewing, editing, or publishing. These potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

Financial interests: Funding sources, stock ownership, employment, consultancy arrangements, or other financial ties related to the research.

Personal relationships: Close personal or familial relationships with individuals involved in the research or publication process.

Academic relationships: Collaborations or academic affiliations that could affect objectivity or create perceptions of bias.

Competing affiliations: Relationships with competing organizations that might have conflicting interests in the research or its outcomes.

Intellectual property: Ownership of patents, copyrights, or intellectual property rights potentially impacted by the research or publication.

3. Handling Conflicts of Interest

The management will address conflicts of interest with diligence and transparency.

For Authors: Authors are required to disclose all potential conflicts of interest during the manuscript submission process. If a conflict of interest is identified after publication, authors should promptly inform the editorial board. The editorial board will address the conflict transparently and, if necessary, issue corrections or retractions.

For Reviewers: Reviewers must decline invitations to review if they have conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. If a conflict arises during the review process, reviewers should immediately notify the editorial board for appropriate action.

For Editors and Journal Staff: Editors and journal staff involved in the review and publication process must recuse themselves from handling submissions in which they have conflicts of interest. When uncertainty arises, the editorial board will decide on the appropriate course of action.

For Publishers: The publisher must implement policies to address potential conflicts of interest within its organization. The publisher should ensure that editorial decisions and processes are free from financial or competing interests.

4. Transparency and Disclosure

This journal will clearly outline its conflicts of interest policy and inform all stakeholders of the requirements for disclosure. Disclosures made by authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders will be published alongside the relevant articles, reviews, or editorials to ensure transparency. Additionally, the journal will limit or restrict access to the publication process for editors, reviewers, and stakeholders who co-author articles submitted to the journal.

Post-publication Discussion

We recognizes that scholarly discourse continues beyond publication. The journal encourages constructive and respectful discussion of published articles as a means to advance understanding, clarify findings, and refine knowledge according to the focus and scope. In accordance with COPE’s core practices and WAME’s guidance, post-publication discussions should contribute to the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Readers and authors may submit letters to the editor or short commentaries addressing articles published in the journal. Submissions should be concise, supported by relevant evidence, and directly related to the article under discussion. All submissions will undergo editorial assessment to ensure their relevance, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Where online commenting is available, comments may be moderated to maintain constructive discussion.

Authors of the original article will normally be given an opportunity to respond to substantive comments or critiques. Accepted commentaries and author responses may be published and linked to the original article to facilitate further scholarly exchange. Discussions that identify potential errors or concerns about research integrity will be assessed under the journal’s Corrections and Retractions policy.

Correction and Retraction

This journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Published articles may require amendment when significant errors, omissions, or concerns about research integrity are identified. Authors, readers, and reviewers are encouraged to report such issues to the Editor-in-Chief, providing specific details and supporting evidence. Reports will be assessed impartially, in consultation with the authors and, where appropriate, reviewers, editorial board members, or relevant institutions, following COPE’s guidance and WAME’s recommendations.

Corrections will be issued when confirmed errors affect the interpretation or understanding of an article but do not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. Author-originated errors may be addressed through a corrigendum, while errors introduced during journal production may be addressed through an erratum. Each correction notice will clearly describe the error, explain the amendment, and be permanently linked to the original article. Any changes to the published article will be clearly identified to preserve a transparent publication record.

Retraction will be considered when there is clear evidence that an article’s findings are unreliable because of a major error, fabrication, or falsification, or when the publication involves plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research. Retraction decisions will be based on the available evidence and the need to protect the scholarly record. A formal retraction notice will identify the article, state who is retracting it, and explain the reasons, distinguishing between honest error and misconduct where possible. The article will ordinarily remain accessible but will be clearly marked as retracted and linked to the notice.

An expression of concern may be issued when substantial concerns exist about an article’s reliability or integrity but the available evidence is inconclusive, or an investigation is ongoing or likely to be prolonged. The notice will explain the concerns and be linked to the article. It will be updated or replaced with an appropriate notice when further evidence becomes available or the investigation concludes. Authors are expected to cooperate with the journal by providing relevant data, explanations, or clarifications needed to resolve post-publication issues.

Ownership & Management

This journal is published by Universitas Sebelas Maret. The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, ethical publishing, transparency, and operational sustainability in accordance with international best practices in scholarly publishing.

This journal upholds full editorial independence. All editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, including originality, scientific quality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with publication ethics. Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team without interference from the publisher or external parties.