Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Jurnal Psikologi (JPsi) is an open-access peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including authors, chief editor, associate editor, editorial board, peer-reviewers and publisher (Universitas Gadjah Mada). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed JPsi journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publisher, and society. Universitas Gadjah Mada, as the publisher of Jurnal Psikologi, takes its' duties to oversee all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Also, the Faculty of Psychology Universitas Gadjah Mada and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research by authors, or in reporting research results.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This process will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also includes determining whether the individual's alleging misconduct has relevant conflicts of interest.
If possible scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are present, the corresponding author will be informed of the allegation on behalf of the co-authors to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, it would be sufficient for authors to clarify and/or provide additional analysis through a written letter to the editor, which may include corrections of the published manuscripts.
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of the scientific misconduct allegations. Ultimately, the authors, journal editors, and institutions have an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns (i.e., corrections, retractions with replacement, retractions), JPsi journal continues to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
The papers published in the Jurnal Psikologi will be considered to retract in the publication if:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).
- It constitutes plagiarism (more than 20% similarity index).
- It reports being unethical.
The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines
All of the work you submit must be original and written in your own words. At the initial screening upon submission, all manuscripts will be checked for similarity index using Turnitin program. The maximum limit of similarity score is 20%, and the percentage of each similarity unit score should not reach more than 3%. We take plagiarism extremely seriously. Plagiarism can take many forms, and each is legally prohibited. All such allegations are handled in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
We discourage our authors from excessively citing their own previously published works. All citations in the work must be relevant and provide value to the content; they should not be added solely to boost the author(s)' citation score.
We reject citation pushing. Including redundant or irrelevant references to improve another author's or authors' citation record is unethical, and if discovered, may result in the removal of such work from our databases and the ban of participating authors in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics rules.
We encourage our contributors to quote previously published scholarship to strengthen their points. Peer-reviewers may also advise authors to work that they believe can further develop and improve ideas in.
In the event of an authorship dispute, we adhere to the COPE rules. These difficulties could include:
- Ghost authorship is the exclusion of a contributor from the list of authors.
- Gift/guest authorship refers to the inclusion of someone who has not contributed to the work or has opted not to be affiliated with the research.
- Disputes regarding author order and contribution levels.
To be considered an author, one must have contributed significantly to the work's conception or design, as well as the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data and contributed to the work's drafting or critical revision for important intellectual substance.
Duties of Reviewers
|Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
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 him or herself from the review process.
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.
Acknowledgment of Sources
|Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is derived from the previously reported observation or argument should be accompanied by relevant citations. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
|Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
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 behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access, Retention and Reproducibility
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
The author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
Authorship and Contributorship of the Paper
The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Duties of Editors
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. The research editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
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. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.