Please read the following guidelines carefully before submitting your manuscript to Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik. Manuscripts that do not follow this structure will be returned to the author before entering the review process.

Publication Decisions

The editor of the Spirit Publik Jurnal Administrasi Publik 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

The disclosure and conflict of interest duties for editors are set out in the journal's Competing Interest Policy.

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

The disclosure and conflict of interest duties for reviewers are set out in the journal's Competing Interest Policy.

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.

Research Data

Authors are encouraged to deposit the data underlying their research findings in a recognized public data repository, where this is practicable. Data involving participant privacy concerns, ethical restrictions, or third-party intellectual property rights may be withheld or made available with restricted access.

If the underlying data cannot be shared publicly, authors should state that the data is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The statement must be included in every article and should clearly indicate the accessibility of the underlying data. Authors should in any event be prepared to retain their data for a reasonable time after publication and provide it for editorial review if requested.

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. Individuals who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who have contributed to specific substantive aspects of the research may be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Each author’s specific contribution to the manuscript must be disclosed in an author contribution statement. This statement is required for every published article.

Gift authorship is not permitted. This refers to including individuals who have not made a substantial contribution to the work. Ghost authorship is also not permitted. This refers to omitting individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the work.

All authors share responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the entire manuscript. This applies regardless of their individual roles in the research.

Any change to the authorship list must be approved in writing by all authors. This includes adding, removing, or reordering authors. Changes must also be explained to the editor.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included. The corresponding author must also ensure that no inappropriate co-authors are included. All co-authors must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors must agree to its submission for publication.

Human and Animal Research Ethics

Research involving human participants or animal subjects must have obtained approval from a recognized research ethics committee before the research was conducted. The manuscript must state the approval number, the year of approval, and the name of the ethics committee.

Research with minimal risk to participants, such as an anonymous survey or the use of publicly available data, may not require formal ethics committee approval. In such cases, the author must include a statement explaining why the research qualifies as minimal risk.

Research involving human participants must also comply with the journal's requirements on participant consent, as set out below.

An author must not create or submit a fabricated ethical approval number, letter, or certificate. A manuscript found to contain a fabricated approval document will be handled in accordance with the journal's policy on Allegations of Misconduct.

The editor reserves the right to request the original ethical approval document, or other supporting evidence, at any stage of the review or publication process.

Participant Consent

Research involving human participants must obtain the informed consent of each participant before data collection begins. Authors must obtain explicit consent for the publication of any material that could reveal a participant’s identity, including photographs, direct quotations, or case descriptions.

Authors must protect the privacy and confidentiality of research participants. Personal information that is not essential to the research findings should be omitted from the manuscript.

Authors must retain evidence of participant consent and provide it to the editor if requested.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

The disclosure and conflict of interest duties for authors are set out in the journal's Competing Interest Policy.

Corrections and Retraction

Authors must promptly notify the journal editor if they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work. Authors must cooperate with the editor to correct or retract the article when necessary.

A correction may be issued for an error that does not affect the overall interpretation or validity of the article. Examples include typographical errors or incomplete author affiliations.

An editorial expression of concern may be issued when there is a well-founded reason to question the reliability of an article and the investigation has not been completed.

A retraction may be issued when an article contains unreliable findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or a violation of research or publication ethics that compromises the validity of the work.

Authors may request the withdrawal of a submitted manuscript before publication. Withdrawal requires the editor’s approval and is permitted before the manuscript is formally accepted.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for decisions regarding corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions in consultation with the editorial board.

The original article will remain in the journal’s records. A correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be published as a linked notice. The original article will be clearly marked to indicate the publication of the notice. This ensures that the publication history remains transparent and intact.

When a correction or retraction is issued, the article’s DOI and metadata will be updated as necessary. A link to the corresponding public notice will also be provided.

Readers may submit comments, questions, or concerns regarding published articles to the editorial team at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

The editor will assess each submission for its relevance and validity. The editor may invite the author to provide a response before reaching a decision. Any error or issue identified through the discussion will be addressed in accordance with the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy.

Suspected research or publication misconduct concerning a manuscript submitted to or published in Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik may be reported to the editorial team at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

The editor will assess each report to determine whether further investigation is necessary. The editor may request additional information or supporting evidence from the author, reviewer, or other relevant parties.

The identity of the person reporting the concern will remain confidential throughout the process unless disclosure is required by law.

The editor may contact the author’s institution or funding body when necessary to address or resolve the concern.

The outcome of the assessment may include closure of the case without further action, a correction, an editorial expression of concern, a retraction, or notification to the relevant institution.

1. Purpose and Scope

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik recognizes the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic writing and scholarly publishing and is committed to ensuring their use remains transparent, ethical, and consistent with the principles of research integrity.

This policy applies to all parties involved in the journal's publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors. It establishes the permitted uses, restrictions, disclosure requirements, and responsibilities associated with generative AI tools in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial decision-making.

2. Scope of Use

Generative AI tools may be used by authors to assist with tasks such as improving language, grammar, and readability. Such assistance must not replace the author's intellectual contribution or independent scholarly judgment.

Generative AI tools must not be used to generate the primary intellectual content of the manuscript, including the Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion, or Conclusion sections. Authors are expected to contribute original ideas, analysis, interpretation, and intellectual input to the manuscript.

The use of generative AI to independently formulate research questions, develop methodological arguments, interpret findings, or generate scholarly conclusions is not permitted. Authors may use AI-assisted language editing, provided that the original meaning, scholarly arguments, and substantive content remain their own.

All AI-assisted content must be carefully reviewed and verified by the authors before submission.

3. Authorship and Generative AI Contributions

Generative AI tools do not qualify for authorship. Authorship requires the capacity to take responsibility for the submitted work, approve its final version, and be accountable for its accuracy and integrity. Generative AI tools cannot fulfill these requirements.

Generative AI tools must not be listed or cited as an author or co-author of any manuscript submitted to Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik. This applies regardless of the extent of their contribution to the manuscript.

Authors must not attribute responsibility for errors, inaccuracies, or ethical violations to generative AI tools.

4. Mandatory Disclosure

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools during manuscript preparation, including language editing, grammar correction, readability improvement, or other permitted assistance.

If any generative AI tool was used at any stage of preparing the manuscript, this use must be clearly declared in a separate section entitled Declaration of Generative AI Use, placed before the reference list, using a statement such as:

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] in order to [STATE THE PURPOSE]. The author(s) subsequently reviewed and edited the content as necessary and remain fully responsible for the content of the published article."

If no generative AI tools were used, authors are encouraged to include the following statement:

"The author(s) declare that no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript."

Disclosure does not automatically imply that the use of generative AI complies with this policy. All declared uses remain subject to the restrictions established in Section 2.

5. AI Use in Peer Review and Editorial Process

6. Author Responsibility

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the entire manuscript, including any content assisted by generative AI tools.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or manipulate data, results, citations, references, or research evidence. Authors must verify that all AI-assisted content, including any suggested citations or references, is accurate, relevant, and genuinely exists.

Authors are also responsible for ensuring that AI-assisted language editing does not introduce unsupported claims, distort the meaning of cited sources, misrepresent research findings, or alter the intended interpretation of their work.

The use of generative AI does not diminish or transfer the authors' responsibility for compliance with the journal's publication ethics and research integrity standards.

7. Editorial Review

Manuscripts submitted to Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik, whether AI-assisted or not, will undergo the same rigorous peer-review process to assess their scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, and adherence to ethical standards.

The disclosure of permitted generative AI use will not, by itself, constitute grounds for manuscript rejection. However, the journal may request clarification regarding the nature, purpose, or extent of AI assistance when necessary to assess compliance with this policy.

Editors retain the authority to evaluate whether declared or suspected AI use is consistent with the journal's requirements. Editorial assessments and publication decisions must remain grounded in the manuscript's scholarly quality and verifiable evidence rather than unsupported assumptions about AI use.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, and related editorial communications are confidential. This confidentiality extends to the use of generative AI tools.

No party involved in the editorial or review process may input confidential manuscript content into any generative AI tool. This restriction also applies to author information, reviewer identities, reviewer comments, unpublished research data, and confidential editorial correspondence.

Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI services to process, summarize, analyze, translate, or otherwise reproduce confidential submission materials.

The journal's general confidentiality obligations during the review process are set out separately in the Peer Review Process policy.

9. Suspected Misuse of Generative AI

Any suspected undisclosed or improper use of generative AI will be handled in accordance with the journal's policy on Allegations of Misconduct.

This includes fabricated content, misrepresented authorship, undisclosed AI assistance, AI-generated scholarly content that violates this policy, and breaches of the confidentiality provisions above.

Suspected misuse will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The journal may request explanations, supporting documentation, or corrections from the parties concerned before determining whether a policy violation has occurred.

The journal will not rely solely on automated AI-detection tools as conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Depending on the nature and outcome of the assessment, confirmed violations may result in manuscript rejection, correction, retraction, restrictions on participation in the editorial or review process, or notification to the relevant institution, as appropriate.

10. Policy Review

This policy on the use of generative AI in manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial processes may be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect the evolving landscape of AI technology and to align with best practices in scholarly publishing.

11. Contact

Questions regarding this policy may be directed to the editorial team through the journal's Contact page under About the Journal.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. Errors, omissions, or concerns regarding research integrity may be identified after publication. When such issues arise, the journal will take appropriate editorial action to ensure that readers have access to accurate information and that the publication record remains transparent.

This policy establishes the procedures for corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and manuscript withdrawal. Editorial decisions are guided by the nature and significance of the issues identified, the available evidence, and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Reporting Errors and Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other members of the scholarly community are encouraged to report significant errors, inaccuracies, or concerns regarding articles published in Spirit Publik.

Reports should be submitted to the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id. Reports should identify the article concerned, clearly describe the issue, and provide supporting information or evidence where available.

Authors who discover a significant error in their own published work are expected to notify the editorial office promptly and cooperate in determining the appropriate corrective action.

The editorial team will assess reports based on their relevance, credibility, and potential implications for the integrity of the published work. Where necessary, editors may seek clarification from the authors, consult independent experts, or communicate with relevant institutions.

2. Corrections

A correction may be issued when an error or omission is identified in a published article but does not substantially invalidate its central findings or conclusions.

Corrections may address, among other matters:

• Errors in data presentation, calculations, tables, or figures that do not fundamentally alter the research findings.
• Inaccuracies or omissions in methodological descriptions that require clarification.
• Incorrect or incomplete author names, institutional affiliations, or other publication information.
• Errors in references, acknowledgments, funding disclosures, or other relevant statements.
• Production or editorial errors introduced during manuscript preparation and publication.

Depending on the origin and nature of the error, corrections may be identified as a corrigendum or an erratum. Regardless of their classification, all substantive corrections must be communicated transparently.

Each correction notice will identify the original article, explain the nature of the error, specify the information being corrected, and clarify whether the amendment affects the interpretation of the findings.

Corrections will be made publicly accessible and linked to the original article. Any necessary changes to the published article will be identified so that readers can distinguish the corrected information from the original publication record.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect the meaning, interpretation, attribution, or integrity of an article may be addressed without a separate formal correction notice, provided that the changes do not obscure the publication history.

3. Retractions

Retraction may be considered when reliable evidence indicates that the findings or conclusions of a published article are substantially unreliable or that serious research or publication integrity concerns undermine confidence in the work.

Circumstances that may warrant retraction include:

1. Unreliable findings: Major methodological, analytical, computational, or data-related errors that substantially compromise the validity of the article's findings or conclusions.
2. Fabrication or falsification: Evidence that research data, observations, findings, or other scholarly materials have been fabricated, falsified, or materially misrepresented.
3. Plagiarism: Substantial unattributed use of another person's intellectual work or material that seriously compromises publication integrity.
4. Redundant publication: Significant duplication of previously published work without appropriate acknowledgment, authorization, or scholarly justification.
5. Unethical research: Serious violations of applicable research ethics requirements, including the unauthorized use of research data or materials.
6. Compromised publication processes: Evidence of manipulated peer review, fraudulent authorship, or other systematic practices that undermine the legitimacy of the publication.
7. Serious legal or ethical concerns: Substantial copyright violations, undisclosed competing interests that materially compromise the work, or other significant breaches affecting the reliability or legitimacy of the publication.

Retraction decisions will be based on the available evidence and the significance of the problem rather than solely on whether the error resulted from deliberate misconduct or an honest mistake.

The primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and prevent continued reliance on substantially unreliable or compromised research, not to punish authors.

4. Retraction Procedures and Notices

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining whether a retraction is necessary, in consultation with the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, independent experts or relevant institutions.

Before a final decision is reached, the editorial team will normally provide the authors with an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. The journal may request supporting documents, research records, explanations, or other relevant information.

Authors' responses will be considered alongside the available evidence. However, a retraction may proceed without unanimous author agreement when sufficient grounds have been established.

When a retraction is issued, the journal will publish a formal notice that:

1. Clearly identifies the affected article, including its title, authors, and publication details.
2. States the reasons for retraction in an objective and factual manner.
3. Identifies the party responsible for issuing the retraction.
4. Distinguishes confirmed findings from matters that remain uncertain, where relevant.
5. Provides a direct and permanent link to the original article.

The retraction notice will be freely accessible to readers. The original article will ordinarily remain available as part of the scholarly record but will be clearly identified as Retracted and linked to the corresponding notice.

Relevant article metadata and DOI records will be updated where necessary to reflect the article's retracted status and maintain appropriate links between the original publication and its retraction notice.

5. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial questions arise regarding the reliability or integrity of a published article, but the available evidence is inconclusive or a relevant investigation has not been completed.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when:

• Credible allegations of significant research or publication irregularities require further investigation.
• Available evidence raises serious questions about the reliability of the work but does not yet justify retraction.
• Investigations by relevant institutions or other responsible bodies are ongoing or have experienced substantial delays.
• Conflicting or incomplete information prevents a conclusive editorial determination.

The notice will identify the article and explain the nature of the unresolved concerns without prematurely attributing misconduct or declaring the findings invalid.

An Expression of Concern will be publicly accessible and linked to the original article. The editorial team will review the notice when material new evidence becomes available or the relevant investigation concludes.

Depending on the outcome, the journal may issue a correction, publish a retraction, or provide a further notice explaining that the concerns have been resolved. The publication history of these notices will remain accessible to preserve transparency.

6. Manuscript Withdrawal Before Publication

Authors may request the withdrawal of a submitted manuscript before publication by contacting the editorial office and providing an explanation for the request.

In accordance with the journal's existing Publication Ethics policy, withdrawal requires editorial approval and is permitted before the manuscript has been formally accepted.

The corresponding author should communicate the request with the knowledge and agreement of all co-authors. The editorial team may seek clarification where necessary, particularly when a withdrawal request is associated with an unresolved authorship dispute or potential research integrity concern.

Manuscript withdrawal before publication is distinct from retraction. Retraction procedures apply to works that have already entered the published scholarly record.

7. Editorial Assessment and Decision-Making

Reports of post-publication concerns will be evaluated according to the seriousness of the issue, the strength of the available evidence, and its potential impact on the reliability of the published work.

The editorial assessment may involve examination of the published article, correspondence with the authors, review of relevant supporting materials, or consultation with independent experts.

Where an allegation concerns possible research misconduct requiring institutional investigation, the journal may contact the relevant institution or other responsible body in accordance with its Publication Ethics policy.

The Editor-in-Chief will determine the appropriate editorial response in consultation with the Editorial Board. Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not participate in decisions concerning the affected article.

Depending on the circumstances, the outcome may include no further action, a correction, an Expression of Concern, a retraction, or referral to a relevant institution.

Editorial decisions will seek to protect the integrity of the scholarly record while treating the individuals involved fairly and avoiding unsupported allegations.

8. Preservation of the Publication Record

Spirit Publik is committed to preserving the accessibility and traceability of published research and subsequent editorial notices.

Corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern will be clearly identified, publicly available, and linked to the affected articles. Where applicable, publication metadata will be updated to reflect the relevant editorial action.

Published articles will not ordinarily be removed solely because they have been retracted. In exceptional circumstances involving legal requirements, serious privacy or confidentiality risks, or other compelling grounds, access to specific content may need to be restricted or removed. Where legally and practically permissible, a public notice will explain the removal without disclosing protected information.

These measures are intended to ensure that readers can establish the current status of an article and understand the history of any substantive editorial action.

9. Policy Implementation and Related Guidelines

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics, its procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct, and other applicable editorial policies.

Spirit Publik refers to relevant COPE guidance when evaluating correction, retraction, and post-publication integrity issues.

Questions, correction requests, and concerns regarding published articles may be directed to the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik recognizes authorship as an acknowledgment of substantive intellectual contributions and a commitment to the integrity of scholarly work. The journal requires that authorship and contributorship be assigned transparently, accurately, and responsibly in accordance with established principles of publication ethics and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This policy complements the journal's Publication Ethics and Author Guidelines by establishing specific requirements for authorship eligibility, contributor recognition, author responsibilities, and the management of authorship-related concerns.

1. Authorship Eligibility

Individuals listed as authors must have participated meaningfully in the development and preparation of the submitted research. Authorship is not determined solely by academic position, institutional affiliation, funding responsibility, or participation in routine research activities.

To qualify for authorship, an individual must meet all four criteria:

1. Substantial intellectual contribution: Contribute significantly to the conception or design of the study, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of research data, or the development of its substantive intellectual content.
2. Manuscript preparation and critical revision: Participate in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it to improve its intellectual content.
3. Final approval: Review and approve the final version of the manuscript intended for publication.
4. Accountability: Accept responsibility for the integrity of the work and cooperate in resolving questions concerning its accuracy, originality, or ethical conduct.

All individuals who satisfy these requirements should be recognized as authors. Contributors whose involvement does not fulfill all four criteria should be acknowledged appropriately rather than included in the author list.

2. Author Contributions and CRediT Taxonomy

Spirit Publik requires an Author Contribution Statement for every manuscript. This statement must clearly describe each author's involvement using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).

The CRediT framework identifies fourteen contribution roles:

1. Conceptualization
2. Data Curation
3. Formal Analysis
4. Funding Acquisition
5. Investigation
6. Methodology
7. Project Administration
8. Resources
9. Software
10. Supervision
11. Validation
12. Visualization
13. Writing – Original Draft
14. Writing – Review & Editing

Authors may report multiple roles, and the same role may be assigned to more than one author when appropriate. Contributions must reflect actual participation rather than nominal or anticipated involvement.

CRediT roles are intended to describe contributions and do not independently determine authorship eligibility. Every listed author must satisfy the criteria established in Section 1, regardless of the roles assigned.

The contribution statement must be included in the manuscript in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines and will be presented in the published article.

3. Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author acts as the primary representative of the author group in communications with the editorial office. The corresponding author is expected to:

1. Verify that the author list includes all eligible contributors and excludes individuals who do not qualify for authorship.
2. Obtain confirmation that every co-author has approved the manuscript, the order of authors, and its submission.
3. Coordinate the preparation and submission of author contribution statements and relevant ethical declarations.
4. Communicate editorial decisions, reviewer feedback, and revision requirements to all co-authors.
5. Ensure that all authors approve the final manuscript before publication.
6. Report proposed authorship changes or disputes to the editorial office without delay.

These responsibilities do not diminish the individual and collective accountability of other co-authors for the integrity of the published research.

4. Author Order and Authorship Changes

The author group must agree on the order of authors before manuscript submission. The journal does not prescribe a particular method for determining authorship order, provided that the arrangement is mutually agreed upon and does not misrepresent contributions.

Changes involving the addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission require editorial consideration. Such requests must include a written explanation and documented agreement from all affected authors.

Requests submitted after manuscript acceptance will be subject to additional editorial scrutiny. The editorial team may decline changes that lack sufficient justification or supporting documentation.

Where an authorship change becomes necessary after publication, the journal will assess whether a formal correction is required to maintain the accuracy and transparency of the published record.

5. Acknowledgment of Contributors

Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the authorship criteria should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section, where applicable.

Such contributions may involve technical assistance, administrative coordination, language editing, logistical support, or other forms of assistance that do not independently qualify an individual for authorship.

Financial sponsorship, institutional leadership, and general supervision alone are insufficient grounds for authorship. Individuals providing these forms of support may be acknowledged when appropriate.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from individuals identified in the Acknowledgments section and accurately describing their contributions.

6. Inappropriate Authorship Practices

Spirit Publik prohibits practices that misrepresent the individuals responsible for scholarly work. These include:

• Gift or honorary authorship: Listing individuals primarily because of their professional status, institutional authority, or personal relationships without qualifying contributions.
• Guest authorship: Including individuals to enhance the perceived credibility or publication prospects of a manuscript without sufficient intellectual involvement.
• Ghost authorship: Excluding individuals who satisfy the authorship requirements or concealing substantial contributions that should be disclosed.
• Purchased or exchanged authorship: Assigning authorship in return for financial compensation, favors, or arrangements unrelated to legitimate research contributions.

Concerns regarding these practices may be investigated under the journal's Publication Ethics and research misconduct procedures.

7. Generative Artificial Intelligence and Authorship

Generative artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume scholarly accountability or fulfill the ethical responsibilities of authorship.

In accordance with Spirit Publik's AI Tools Usage Policy, generative AI may be used to assist with language improvement, grammar, and readability. It must not be used to generate the manuscript's primary intellectual content, including its Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion, or Conclusion.

Any use of generative AI in manuscript preparation must be disclosed in the Declaration of Generative AI section as required by the Author Guidelines.

Human authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, and ethical compliance of the submitted and published work.

8. Authorship Disputes and Resolution

Disagreements concerning authorship eligibility, author order, contribution statements, or omitted contributors should be reported promptly to the editorial office.

The editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, and written statements from the individuals involved. Authors are encouraged to resolve disagreements collaboratively and in accordance with their documented contributions.

When a dispute cannot be resolved through editorial correspondence, the journal may seek clarification from the relevant academic or research institution. Editorial processing may be suspended when an unresolved dispute raises significant concerns about the integrity of the submission.

The journal will consider applicable COPE guidance in evaluating authorship-related concerns. Any necessary post-publication action will be handled in accordance with the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy.

9. Compliance and Related Policies

By submitting a manuscript to Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik, all authors confirm that the information concerning authorship and contributions is accurate and that the manuscript has been approved by the author group.

Noncompliance with this policy may result in requests for clarification, suspension of editorial processing, rejection, or appropriate post-publication measures, depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern.

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics, Author Guidelines, AI Tools Usage Policy, and Corrections and Retractions Policy.

For authorship-related inquiries, authors may contact the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik publishes scholarly articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in public administration, public policy, and governance. The journal welcomes manuscripts that demonstrate academic originality, theoretical relevance, methodological rigor, and meaningful contributions to scholarly debates and public sector practices.

The journal primarily accepts original empirical and theoretical research articles. Review articles are also considered when they provide a substantial contribution to the development, synthesis, or critical evaluation of knowledge within the journal's disciplinary scope. All manuscripts must comply with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, and Publication Ethics.

1. Original Empirical Research Articles

Original empirical research articles present findings derived from systematic investigations of public administration, public policy, governance, or related institutional and societal processes. These manuscripts must address clearly formulated research questions and offer original findings supported by relevant empirical evidence.

Empirical research may employ qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches, including comparative and case-based research designs. Manuscripts in this category are expected to:

1. Identify a clearly defined research problem and explain its significance within existing scholarly debates.
2. Establish an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation and demonstrate the research gap addressed by the study.
3. Describe the research design, data sources, data collection procedures, and analytical methods with sufficient transparency.
4. Present findings supported by credible and systematically analyzed empirical evidence.
5. Discuss the contribution of the findings to theoretical understanding, policy development, governance practices, or public administration scholarship.

Empirical research articles should move beyond descriptive accounts of administrative phenomena by offering analytical insights and explaining their significance in relation to relevant theories, concepts, or existing research.

2. Theoretical Research Articles

Theoretical research articles advance scholarly understanding through the development, refinement, integration, or critical examination of theories and conceptual frameworks relevant to public administration, public policy, and governance.

Rather than relying primarily on newly collected empirical data, these manuscripts develop arguments through systematic engagement with existing scholarship, theoretical propositions, and relevant conceptual debates. Theoretical research articles are expected to:

1. Identify a significant theoretical or conceptual problem within the relevant body of scholarship.
2. Critically examine established theories, concepts, or explanatory perspectives and identify their limitations or unresolved questions.
3. Develop a coherent and well-supported theoretical argument, conceptual refinement, or integrative framework.
4. Explain the originality and scholarly relevance of the proposed theoretical contribution.
5. Discuss the implications of the argument for future research, empirical investigation, or understanding of public administration and governance.

A theoretical research article must provide an identifiable intellectual contribution. Manuscripts that merely summarize established theories without critical analysis, conceptual development, or an original argument are not considered sufficient for this category.

3. Review Articles

Spirit Publik considers review articles that offer substantial analytical, conceptual, or theoretical contributions to the study of public administration, public policy, and governance. Review articles should provide more than a descriptive summary of previously published studies.

Review manuscripts may employ systematic, scoping, integrative, or other clearly justified scholarly review approaches, provided that the selected approach is appropriate to the research objectives and applied transparently.

Review articles are expected to:

1. Present clearly defined review objectives, research questions, or analytical problems.
2. Explain the literature identification, selection, and analytical procedures appropriate to the review approach.
3. Critically examine and synthesize relevant scholarly literature rather than merely describing individual publications.
4. Identify significant patterns, theoretical developments, methodological limitations, inconsistencies, or gaps in the existing body of knowledge.
5. Offer meaningful contributions through conceptual synthesis, theoretical insights, research agendas, or implications for public administration and governance.

The journal places particular emphasis on the analytical depth, transparency, originality, and scholarly contribution of review articles. Acceptance of a review manuscript depends on its relevance to the journal's scope and its ability to advance understanding beyond the existing literature.

4. General Manuscript Requirements

Regardless of manuscript type, all submissions to Spirit Publik must satisfy the following requirements:

1. Originality: Manuscripts must present original scholarly contributions and must not have been previously published or be under consideration by another journal.
2. Relevance: The manuscript must fall within the journal's Focus and Scope and make a meaningful contribution to public administration, public policy, or governance scholarship.
3. Language: Manuscripts must be written in English, using clear, accurate, and appropriate academic language.
4. Length and format: Manuscripts must follow the journal's prescribed length of 6,000-7,000 words (15-20 pages) and the formatting requirements specified in the Author Guidelines.
5. Research transparency: Authors must provide sufficient explanation of the research or analytical approach to allow appropriate scholarly assessment. Methodological descriptions should be adapted to the nature of the manuscript.
6. Ethical compliance: All manuscripts must comply with the journal's Publication Ethics, plagiarism screening requirements, authorship criteria, and applicable disclosure policies.
7. Submission requirements: Authors must use the journal's manuscript template and provide all statements and supporting information required by the Author Guidelines, where applicable.

The organization of theoretical and review manuscripts may reflect their respective scholarly approaches, provided that any necessary structural adjustments are consistent with the journal's Author Guidelines and approved by the editorial team. All submissions remain subject to editorial screening and peer review.

5. Editorial Evaluation and Manuscript Classification

All manuscript types are submitted through the journal's online submission system and processed under the Articles section. Manuscripts are evaluated through the journal's established editorial screening and double-blind peer-review procedures.

The editorial team assesses submissions according to their relevance to the journal's scope, originality, theoretical or conceptual contribution, methodological or analytical rigor, clarity of presentation, and compliance with editorial requirements.

Authors are expected to ensure that the nature, objectives, and scholarly approach of their manuscripts are accurately represented. The editorial team may request clarification or appropriate revisions when the manuscript's classification or structure does not adequately reflect its research approach.

The journal reserves the right to decline submissions that do not meet the requirements of the accepted manuscript categories or fail to demonstrate a sufficient scholarly contribution, regardless of their general relevance to public administration and governance.

6. Related Editorial Policies

Authors should consult the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, and Peer Review Process for detailed information regarding manuscript preparation, editorial requirements, and the review procedure.

Questions concerning the suitability or classification of a manuscript may be directed to the editorial office through the journal's Contact Information page.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik is committed to upholding research integrity and ethical standards throughout the scholarly publication process. The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and seeks to address reported concerns through fair, confidential, evidence-based, and transparent editorial procedures.

This policy establishes procedures for reporting, assessing, and responding to suspected misconduct involving manuscripts submitted to or articles published in Spirit Publik. It complements the journal's Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship Criteria, and Corrections and Retractions Policy, with reference to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to practices that compromise the honesty, accuracy, originality, transparency, or integrity of scholarly research and its dissemination. Allegations may concern the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, or other individuals involved in the publication process.

Potential forms of misconduct include, but are not limited to:

1. Fabrication and falsification: Inventing, manipulating, or misrepresenting research data, findings, observations, research instruments, or other scholarly materials.
2. Plagiarism and improper attribution: Presenting another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment, including substantial unattributed reuse of previously published material.
3. Duplicate or redundant publication: Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping research without appropriate disclosure, justification, or acknowledgment of related publications.
4. Authorship manipulation: Misrepresenting author contributions, including gift, guest, ghost, purchased, or otherwise inappropriate authorship arrangements.
5. Research ethics violations: Conducting or reporting research in ways that violate applicable ethical requirements, including failure to obtain necessary ethical approval, fabrication of approval documents, or inappropriate handling of participant consent and confidentiality.
6. Peer-review manipulation: Interfering with the independence, confidentiality, or integrity of peer review, including fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent review reports, or undisclosed arrangements intended to influence editorial decisions.
7. Undisclosed competing interests: Concealing significant financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could materially affect the assessment or interpretation of research.
8. Misrepresentation of research materials: Providing misleading information about data sources, research procedures, ethical approvals, funding, or the availability of supporting evidence.
9. Improper use of generative artificial intelligence: Using AI tools in ways that violate the journal's AI Tools Usage Policy, including undisclosed or prohibited generation of substantive manuscript content.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred. Editorial responses will be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the outcome of any relevant assessment or investigation.

2. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutional representatives, and other concerned parties may report suspected research or publication misconduct involving a manuscript under consideration or an article already published in Spirit Publik.

Reports should be submitted to the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id and should include, where available:

1. The title, authors, manuscript identification number, DOI, or other information identifying the work concerned.
2. A clear description of the suspected misconduct and the specific concerns being raised.
3. Relevant evidence, documentation, references, or supporting materials that may assist editorial assessment.
4. Contact information for further clarification, where the reporting individual is willing to provide it.

Reports should be submitted in good faith and should distinguish observed facts from assumptions or interpretations. The editorial team may also consider anonymous reports when sufficient verifiable information is provided.

The journal will assess concerns on their merits rather than solely on the identity or status of the person submitting the report.

3. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's editorial responsibilities and whether further examination is warranted.

The preliminary assessment may include:

1. Reviewing the reported information and available supporting evidence.
2. Identifying the manuscript or published article concerned and examining its publication history where relevant.
3. Determining whether the concern involves a possible error, an ethical violation, an authorship dispute, or suspected research misconduct.
4. Requesting additional documentation or clarification from the reporting party or other relevant individuals.
5. Considering whether the matter requires independent expert advice or referral to an appropriate institution.

If the available information does not substantiate the concern or does not justify further editorial action, the case may be closed. Cases involving credible concerns will proceed to an appropriate examination or be referred to the responsible institution where necessary.

4. Examination and Opportunity to Respond

When further examination is warranted, the editor may contact the individuals concerned and request explanations, research records, supporting materials, or other relevant documentation.

Individuals whose conduct is questioned will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an editorial decision is made. Responses will be considered alongside the available evidence and any relevant expert assessments.

The editorial team may consult independent experts when specialized methodological, technical, or ethical evaluation is required. Individuals with relevant competing interests should not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

Where an allegation concerns a manuscript under review, editorial processing may be suspended while significant integrity concerns are assessed. Any suspension will be considered according to the seriousness of the issue and the available evidence.

5. Institutional Involvement and Cooperation

Spirit Publik recognizes that formal investigations into research misconduct may fall within the responsibilities of universities, research institutions, funding bodies, or other competent authorities.

When a reported concern requires access to institutional research records, assessment of individual conduct, or a formal determination beyond the journal's editorial authority, the Editor-in-Chief may refer the matter to the relevant institution or responsible body.

The journal may request clarification concerning the status or outcome of an institutional investigation and consider its findings when determining the appropriate editorial response.

Referral to an institution does not remove the journal's responsibility to protect the integrity of the publication record. The editorial team may take proportionate action when sufficient evidence is available, including while an institutional investigation remains ongoing.

6. Editorial Decisions and Possible Outcomes

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board and other relevant parties where appropriate, will determine the editorial action warranted by the available evidence and the circumstances of the case.

Possible outcomes include:

1. No further action: The concern is not substantiated or does not require editorial intervention.
2. Request for clarification or revision: Authors are asked to explain or correct matters identified during manuscript assessment.
3. Suspension or rejection: Editorial processing is suspended or a manuscript is rejected when serious integrity concerns prevent further consideration.
4. Correction: A published article contains an identifiable error that can be corrected without substantially invalidating its findings.
5. Expression of Concern: Significant questions about a published article remain unresolved or require further investigation.
6. Retraction: A published article is found to contain substantially unreliable findings or serious integrity problems warranting withdrawal from the reliable scholarly record.
7. Institutional notification: The matter is referred to or communicated to an appropriate institution, funding body, or responsible authority.

Actions involving published articles will follow the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy. Editorial measures will be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and will not automatically imply a formal finding of intentional misconduct.

7. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Protection of Reporting Parties

The journal will handle allegations with appropriate confidentiality and respect for all parties involved. Information concerning an allegation will be shared only with individuals or institutions whose involvement is reasonably necessary for assessment, investigation, or appropriate editorial action.

Consistent with the journal's existing Publication Ethics policy, the identity of a reporting individual will remain confidential unless disclosure is required by law.

The editorial team will seek to avoid premature conclusions, unsupported public allegations, and unnecessary disclosure of personal or confidential research information.

All individuals involved in the assessment are expected to act impartially. Editors who have a competing interest in a reported case must withdraw from its evaluation and decision-making.

8. Post-Publication Concerns and Scholarly Record Integrity

Research integrity concerns may arise before or after publication. When an allegation relates to a published article, the journal will consider whether a public editorial notice is necessary to inform readers of significant errors or unresolved concerns.

Where warranted, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions will be publicly accessible and linked to the original article. Relevant publication metadata may also be updated in accordance with the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy.

The purpose of these actions is to maintain an accurate and transparent publication record while distinguishing established findings from unresolved allegations.

9. Policy Compliance and Related Procedures

All authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for information relevant to the assessment of suspected research or publication misconduct.

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics, Plagiarism Policy, Competing Interest Policy, and AI Tools Usage Policy, as well as its specific authorship and post-publication correction policies.

Concerns regarding potential misconduct may be submitted to the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik recognizes that scholarly evaluation and discussion continue beyond the publication of an article. Constructive academic dialogue contributes to the development of knowledge, encourages critical engagement with published research, and helps maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal welcomes post-publication comments, questions, scholarly responses, and evidence-based concerns regarding articles published in Spirit Publik. This policy outlines the procedures for submitting, evaluating, and responding to such contributions while ensuring that discussions remain professional, constructive, and academically relevant.

1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion provides an opportunity for readers, researchers, practitioners, and other members of the academic community to critically engage with published articles and contribute to ongoing scholarly dialogue.

Discussions may address matters such as:

• Questions concerning the interpretation, significance, or implications of published research findings.
• Constructive critiques of theoretical arguments, conceptual frameworks, research methods, or analytical approaches.
• Alternative interpretations or perspectives supported by relevant scholarly evidence.
• Requests for clarification regarding research procedures, data presentation, or reported findings.
• Identification of possible inaccuracies, omissions, or other matters that may require editorial attention.

Post-publication discussion is intended to support scholarly exchange rather than serve as a platform for personal criticism, unsupported allegations, or disputes unrelated to the academic content of published articles.

2. Submission of Comments and Scholarly Responses

Readers who wish to comment on or raise questions about a published article may contact the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

To facilitate editorial assessment, submissions should include:

1. The title, author names, publication details, or DOI of the article being discussed.
2. A clear explanation of the question, comment, critique, or concern being raised.
3. Relevant scholarly arguments, references, or supporting evidence where appropriate.
4. Contact information to enable further editorial communication and clarification.

Comments should be expressed respectfully and supported by reasoned academic arguments. Submissions containing personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, defamatory statements, or irrelevant promotional material will not be considered for scholarly discussion.

3. Editorial Assessment and Author Responses

The editorial team will assess post-publication submissions according to their relevance, clarity, academic merit, and supporting evidence. The editor may request further explanation or documentation when necessary.

Where a comment raises a substantive question concerning a published article, the editor may invite the corresponding author or other relevant authors to provide clarification or a written response.

Authors are encouraged to engage constructively with legitimate scholarly questions and to provide accurate explanations of their research when clarification is requested.

The editorial team retains responsibility for determining whether a discussion requires further correspondence, an editorial clarification, or consideration under another applicable journal policy. Not every comment or disagreement will require formal publication or corrective action.

4. Communication and Dissemination of Discussion Outcomes

Post-publication discussions are initially managed through editorial correspondence. Depending on the scholarly significance of the issue, the journal may facilitate further communication between the parties concerned.

Where a discussion produces a substantive clarification of broader relevance to readers, the editorial team may consider making an appropriate response or notice publicly available through the journal's website.

The publication of comments, responses, or editorial clarifications is subject to editorial assessment and is not automatic. Any publicly disseminated discussion must maintain academic relevance, fairness, and appropriate standards of scholarly communication.

5. Concerns Regarding Research Integrity

Post-publication comments may occasionally identify possible errors or raise concerns about the reliability or integrity of published research. Such concerns will be assessed according to their nature and significance.

Where a concern indicates a possible error requiring formal amendment, the journal will follow its Corrections and Retractions Policy. Concerns involving suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious ethical violations will be addressed under the journal's procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct.

Constructive scholarly disagreement does not, by itself, constitute research misconduct or justify correction or retraction. Editorial action will depend on the available evidence and whether the concern affects the reliability or integrity of the published record.

6. Principles of Scholarly Dialogue

Spirit Publik is committed to facilitating post-publication discussions based on academic integrity, intellectual openness, fairness, and mutual respect.

Editorial consideration of comments and responses will focus on their scholarly substance rather than the institutional affiliation, academic position, or personal characteristics of the individuals involved.

The journal encourages authors and readers to approach differences in interpretation as opportunities for scholarly clarification and the advancement of knowledge, while maintaining accountability for the accuracy of published research.

Questions, scholarly comments, and requests for post-publication discussion may be directed to the editorial office at spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id.

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS), Indonesia. The journal operates within the institutional academic environment of Universitas Sebelas Maret and serves as a platform for the dissemination of research in public administration, public policy, and governance.

This statement provides information concerning the journal's institutional affiliation, publishing organization, editorial management, and the distribution of responsibilities in its scholarly publishing activities.

1. Institutional Ownership and Affiliation

Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik is institutionally affiliated with Universitas Sebelas Maret through the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences. The department is identified as the journal's publishing organization and provides the institutional framework for its publication activities.

The journal's institutional affiliation identifies the academic organization responsible for supporting its publication and administration. This relationship is distinguished from the editorial responsibilities assigned to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

Information concerning the journal's publisher is also available on the Journal Sponsorship page.

2. Publishing Organization

The journal is published by the following academic institution:

Publisher: Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Institution: Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS)

Address: Jl. Ir. Sutami 36 A, Surakarta, Indonesia

Journal Website: https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/spirit-publik/index

The publishing organization provides the institutional basis for the journal's operation, including coordination of publication administration and support for the continuity of its scholarly publishing activities.

3. Journal Management and Editorial Structure

Spirit Publik is managed through an editorial structure consisting of the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editorial Board, and peer reviewers. These roles support the administration, evaluation, and publication of scholarly manuscripts according to the journal's editorial policies.

The journal's editorial leadership comprises:

• Editor-in-Chief: Rino Ardhian Nugroho, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.
• Managing Editor: Sajida, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.

The Editor-in-Chief oversees editorial decision-making and the implementation of the journal's scholarly and ethical standards. The Managing Editor supports the coordination of editorial administration and manuscript processing.

The Editorial Board contributes to the development and implementation of editorial policies, the assessment of manuscript suitability, and the maintenance of academic quality. Peer reviewers provide expert evaluations of submitted manuscripts in accordance with the journal's peer-review procedures.

The current composition of the editorial team is publicly available through the journal's Editorial Team page. Information concerning peer reviewers is provided separately on the journal's Reviewer page.

4. Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

Editorial decisions at Spirit Publik are governed by the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for applying the journal's established editorial and peer-review policies.

Consistent with the journal's Publication Ethics, institutional, financial, commercial, or other non-academic considerations must not improperly influence the evaluation or acceptance of manuscripts.

The publishing organization provides institutional support for journal operations, while editorial judgments concerning manuscript evaluation, reviewer recommendations, and publication decisions are exercised through the journal's designated editorial structure.

Editors and reviewers are expected to observe the journal's requirements concerning confidentiality, impartiality, competing interests, and publication ethics. Matters involving potential ethical violations are addressed through the relevant editorial policies and procedures.

5. Publication Identity and Accessibility

Spirit Publik maintains the following publication identifiers:

• Print ISSN (p-ISSN): 1907-0489
• Electronic ISSN (e-ISSN): 2580-3875

The journal publishes two regular issues annually, in April and October, and provides access to its published scholarly articles through its official online journal platform.

Information regarding publication schedules, manuscript submission, peer review, copyright, licensing, and research integrity is provided through the journal's publicly accessible editorial policies.

6. Contact and Institutional Correspondence

Inquiries regarding the journal's management, editorial administration, publication policies, or institutional publishing arrangements may be directed to the editorial office.

Editorial Office: Spirit Publik: Jurnal Administrasi Publik

Institution: Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Address: Jl. Ir. Sutami 36 A, Surakarta, Indonesia

Email: spiritpublik@mail.uns.ac.id

Official Contact Page: Journal Contact

The journal is committed to maintaining accurate and accessible information concerning its publishing organization, institutional affiliation, editorial management, and official channels of communication.