The following statements describe ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for Buletin Ilmiah Litbang Perdagangan, i.e.: the author, the Editor, and the peer reviewer. This statement is based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org/.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE EDITORS

1.      Publication Decisions

BILP editors are responsible for deciding which articles to be published from all contributing authors. This decision is based on the research validation, research contributions/significance in which the article gives for the researchers and the readers. In doing so, the editors are guided by the policy of the editorial board which are concerned with laws such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making the decision.

2.      Assessment  Objectivity/ Fair play

Editors conduct the review of a manuscript based on the intellectual contents disregarding any religion, ethnicity, race, gender, race, and others.

3.      Confidentiality

Editors and members of Editorial board must not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone, other than the corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and editorial board.

4.      Conflicts of Interest

A submitted paper sent to BILP has not been published to other journals, and it must not be used for the editor’s personal research benefit without a written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through a blind review must be kept confidential and not to be used for a personal benefit. Editors should refuse to review the manuscript if he/she has a conflict of interest, which is due to the competitive relationship, collaborative, or other links with the authors, companies, or institution associated to the manuscript.

5.      Cooperation in the Investigation/ Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

Editors must take responsive measures if there are complaints related to ethics on a manuscript which has been received or the articles which have been published. Editors can contact the author and give some consideration related to the complaint. Editors can further communicate to the institutions or organizations related to the research. When the complaint has been resolved, issues like corrected/republished, withdrawal, expression of concern, or other records should be considered to be done.

 

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEWER

1.      Contributions to the Editor’s Decision

Blind peer review assists the editors to make decisions and also helps the authors improve their writing through editorial communication between the reviewer and the authors. Peer review is an important component in formal scientific communication (formal scholarly communication) which is considered as a scientific approach.

2.      Promptness

A reviewer who considers her/himself unqualified to review the suggested research output or finds out that the manuscripts is impossible to review in a timely manner, he/she must promptly notify the editor.

3.      Confidentiality

Each manuscript which has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be exposed to or discuss with any other party, unless authorized by the editor.

4.      Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be performed according to the objectivity premise. Giving personal criticism on the author is not appropriate. Reviewers should clearly communicate their opinion on the basis of supporting arguments.

5.      Completeness and Reference Originality

Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited/included by the authors. A statement or an argument which has been previously published should be accompanied by relevant quotes. Reviewers must also notify the editor if there is any substantial similarity or overlap between a submitted manuscript and any other published work which they are personally acquainted.

6.      Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Articles containing unpublished materials cannot not be used by the reviewer for his/her personal benefit without a written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not to be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should reject to review a manuscript if he/she has a conflict of interest, which is due to the competitive relationship, collaborative, or other links which they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated to the manuscript.

 

 

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE AUTHOR

1.      Reporting Standard

Authors must present an accurate work and an objective/fair discussion about the significance of the research. The data must be presented precisely in the article. An article should be sufficiently supported with adequate references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or inaccurate presentation of the paper that constitutes unethical behavior is unacceptable.

2.      Access to Research Data and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide raw data related to an article for editorial review. Authors should be able to provide public access to such data if possible. They should be able to store the data in a reasonable time span after the publication of the article.

3.      Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical behavior in scientific works which is unacceptable. Authors must ensure that all work presented is original, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they must present the appropriate citations. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as acknowledging the writings of others into writing of your own, copying or rewriting substantial parts of the works of others without citing sources, as well as claiming the results of research conducted by others. Self-Plagiarism or bibs plagiarism is also a form of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is citing sentences of the author’s own works which were published without citing sources.

4.      Terms of Posts Delivery

Authors must not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Sending the same manuscript to more than one journal is an unethical behavior in publishing scientific papers and is unacceptable.

5.      Acknowledgement of Source

Acknowledging other people’s work correctly is crucial. Authors must provide publications which had a substantial impact in the scientific area of the manuscript. Information which was privately obtained such as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties may not be used or reported without written permission from the source.

6.      Authorship of the Paper

An author is a person who contributes research significance in concept/theory, design, implementation, or interpretation of the writing in the article. All parties who have made significant contributions are listed as co-authors. Authors of correspondence should ensure that all co-authors have included in the manuscript, and all the co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work, and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

7.      Errors in already published works

When authors found a substantial error or imprecision in a published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the journal editor, and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the text. If the editor receives information from third parties about a work containing significant error in a publication, the authors bear responsibility to immediately withdraw or make corrections to the text editor or give evidence related to the accuracy for the original writings.

 

ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This 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 involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested 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, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important 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, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, BILP will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.