Humaniora uses the Committee of Publication Ethics (CoPE) as its reference on publication ethics. We are strongly opposed to the publication of plagiarized work or duplicate submissions. In addition, we have a commitment to ensure that all submissions are original. Therefore, the editorial office of our journal is responsible to cross-check to ensure that submitted manuscripts have not been published prior to their submission to Humaniora.

There is a limit to the extent that Humaniora can examine submitted works. As such, we call upon external reviewers and the academic community to report any misconduct to our help desk officer via humaniora@ugm.ac.id  for prompt action to be taken.

Humaniora may initiate a retraction if a work is proven to be fraudulent, or an expression of concern if our editors have well-founded suspicion of misconduct. In addition, Humaniora can facilitate a replacement. In this case, the author(s)'s of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original article and replace it with a revised version.

Neither peer-reviewer's comments nor correspondence should contain personal attacks on authors. Editors and peer-reviewers should only criticize the work, not the researcher and should edit (or reject) letters containing personal or offensive statements.

Authors of Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

• The authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of the manuscript against other work in relation to the research. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, this individual should not be credited with the authorship.
• Authors must declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner (or else have obtained the copyright owner's permission).
• Authors must declare that the submitted article and its essential content have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
• The author should avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit. Therefore, it is helpful to decide early on who will be credited as corresponding author, contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
• Authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
• Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated.
• Authors must acknowledge the data sources of their research and should acknowledge financial support sources to the research if any.
• All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be quickly communicated to the Editor.
• Authors should state that the papers they submit have been approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board. If human participants were involved, manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement that the participants had signed informed consent forms.
• Authors should submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author's contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgment.
• Authors should include information about their research fundings in their manuscripts.
• Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.

Reviewers of Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

• All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of the authors.
• Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the editor.
• All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
• Any information that may be the reason for a publication rejection must be communicated to the Editor.
• The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
• Submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
• Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations unless they have the authors’ permission.
• Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
• Reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the following items:
• The importance, originality, and timeliness of the study
• Strengths and weaknesses of the study design and data analysis for research papers or the analysis and commentary for essays
• Writing, organization, and presentation
• The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
• The relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility of the article for the Journal’s target audience.

Editors of Humaniora must adhere to the following guidelines:

• Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
• Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
• Editors should inform peer reviewers about this Misconduct.
• Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to consider ethical issues raised by the research they are reviewing.
• Editors should request additional information from authors if they feel this is required.
• Editors should exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offense.
• Editors should inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred.
• Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to decline peer-review request if they identify a conflict of interest with the manuscript.
• Editors may assign peer-reviewers suggested by authors but should not consider suggestions made by authors as binding.
• Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s) if the editor feels that this would be helpful.
• Decisions by editors about whether or not to publish submitted manuscripts must not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner, or the publisher.
• Editors should publish corrections for discovered errors that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in a manuscript.
• Editors should expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated and should treat allegations of theft or plagiarism seriously.
• Editors should keep peer-reviewers’ identities from authors. If peer-reviewers’ identities are revealed, editors should discourage authors from contacting peer-reviewers directly, especially when misconduct is suspected.
• Editors should reserve the right to reject manuscripts if there is a doubt whether appropriate procedures have been followed. If a paper has been submitted from a country where there is no ethics committee or institutional review board, editors should use their own experience to judge whether or not the paper can be published. If the decision is made to publish a paper under this circumstance, a short statement should be included to explain this situation.
• Editors should ensure timely peer-review and publication for manuscripts they receive, especially where findings may have important implications.
• The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions based on the reviewer’s evaluation, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restraint acting against plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement.