Publication and Ethics

General Guidelines Reported research must be conducted ethically and responsibly and must comply with all relevant laws. Authors must present results, fairly, without fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating data. Authors must explain their research method clearly and unequivocally so that their findings can be confirmed by others. Authors must comply with the requirements of publication, which are original, not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism, and have not been previously published elsewhere. Authors must be collectively responsible for submitted and published works. The sources of funding and the relevant conflicts must be stated Responsible research publication

1. Strength and reliability Reported research must be conducted ethically and responsibly and in accordance with all relevant laws. Reported research must be carried out thoughtfully and carefully. Researchers should use appropriate methods of analysis and data display and presentation (and, if necessary, seek and follow expert advice on this subject). Authors must take collective responsibility for their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at every stage to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately.

2. Honesty Researchers must present data honestly without fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating data. Images should not be modified to give misleading results. Researchers must describe the methods they used and present their findings in an unambiguous manner. Researchers must follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to allow the experiment to be repeated by other researchers. The research report must be complete. The reviewer should not dismiss any unpleasant, inconsistent, or unexplained findings or results that do not support the authors 'or sponsors' hypotheses or interpretations. Research funders and sponsors cannot veto the publication of findings that do not support their product or position. Researchers should not enter into agreements that allow research sponsors to veto or control the publication of findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as research being closed by the government for security reasons). Authors should immediately notify editors if they find errors in work submitted, received, or published. Authors must work closely with editors in issuing corrections or retractions of articles, if necessary. Authors must refer to other people's work accurately in citations. Authors may not copy references from other publications if they have not read the work cited.

3. Balance New findings must be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others must be presented fairly and naturally. The scientific review and synthesis of previous studies should be complete, balanced and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or proposed interpretation. Editorials or Opinions that convey a single point of view or argument must be clearly distinguished from scientific reviews. The limitations of the research should be stated in the publication.

4. Originality Authors must adhere to the publication requirements that the work published is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Submissions may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal unless the editor has agreed to a joint publication. If the article is published together, this should be made clear to the reader. Applicable copyright laws and regulations must be followed. Copyright material (eg tables, figures, or quotes) must be reproduced with appropriate permission and acknowledgment. Relevant previous works and publications, by both other authors and the authors themselves, should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Where possible, citations should come from the original reference. Data, text, numbers, or ideas originating from other researchers must be referenced correctly, and should not be presented as if they were the author's own. Original words taken directly from another researcher's publication must appear in quotation marks with the correct citation. The author should inform the editor if the findings have been previously published or if multiple reports or analyzes of one dataset are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors must provide copies of related publications or submitted works to other journals. Multiple publications arising from a research project should be identified and the main publication referred to. Translations and adaptations for different readers should be identified. Sources must be identified, copyright regulations must be respected. When in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing the work.

5. Transparency All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, procurement of equipment or materials, and other support (such as statisticians or co-authors) should be identified. Authors must disclose the role of the research funder or sponsor (if any) in the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the research. Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that may be considered likely to influence the interpretation of their findings or that the editor, reviewer, or reader may want to know. This includes relationships with journals, for example, if editors publish their research in their journals. In addition, authors must follow journal requirements and institutional requirements to declare a conflict of interest.

6. Author Contribution Research publication authors must accurately reflect each individual's contribution to the article. Top contributors must be listed as authors, while persons who make less substantial, or purely technical contributions, either to the study or to publication are listed in the award section (acknowledgment). The criteria as author or award (acknowledgment) must be approved at the start of the project. Researchers must ensure that only persons who meet authorship criteria (ie have a substantial contribution to the research work) are rewarded with 'authorship' and that authors with worthy contributions are not anonymized. Journal agencies and editors should prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship. Note: -guest authorship (guest writers) are those who do not meet the criteria as authors but are listed because of seniority, reputation, or influence -Gift authorship are those who do not meet the criteria as authors but are listed for personal support or in exchange for payment -Ghost authorship are those who meet the criteria as an author but are not listed All authors must agree to be named and must approve the versions sent and received for publication. Changes to the list and author order must be approved by all authors, including those who have been removed from the list. The correspondence writer should act as a point of contact between the editor and other authors. He must liaise with other authors and involve them in major decisions about the publication (eg responding to reviewer comments). Authors are not allowed to use misleading acknowledgments/awards (acknowledgments) to imply contributions or endorsements by certain individuals who, in fact, were not involved with the work.

7. Accountability and responsibility All authors must read and understand the articles submitted and must ensure that they are followed the principles set out in these guidelines. In most cases, the authors are expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and report. However, if a particular author is responsible for only certain aspects of the research and articles, then this should be stated. Authors work closely with editors and publishers to correct them immediately if errors or omissions are found after publication. Authors must respond appropriately to post-publication comments or published correspondence

8. Compliance with peer review and publication regulations Authors must follow the publisher's requirement that work is not submitted to more than one publisher at the same time. Authors should inform editors if they withdraw their article from the review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments. Authors must respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner. Authors must respect the publisher's request for a press embargo, meaning that they must not allow their findings to be reported to the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published). Authors and their institutions must work together to coordinate media activities (eg press releases and press conferences) related to the publication. Press releases must accurately refer to works and must not contain statements outside of the research results.

9. Reporting who is responsible for research involving human or animal subjects Ethical approval letter and permit or other registration documents must be obtained before the research begins. Details of the letter should be provided in the article, for example, the name of the ethics commission and the licensing authority. If requested by the editor, the author must be able to show evidence of these letters, including proof of consent after the explanation of the research to the subject. Researchers should not publish identifiable individual data without the specific consent of the individual (or his guardian). Researchers must publish all possible research results that contribute to knowledge. In particular, there is an ethical responsibility to publish all clinical trial findings. Publication of failed clinical trials or results that refute the hypothesis may help prevent similar research from being repeated. If the findings from small studies that fail to reach statistical significance are combined, it is possible to obtain a meta-analysis that is statistically significant and possibly useful. Authors should provide research protocols to journal editors when requested (eg for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the study report with the protocol to check that the study was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been ignored. Researchers must follow the relevant clinical trial registration requirements and must include the clinical trial registration number in all publications that emerge from the trial. Adapted from: Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement was developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7) ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS General duties and responsibilities of the editor are responsible for everything published in the journal.

This means that editors must (1) strive to meet the needs of readers and writers; (2) try to improve the quality of journals on an ongoing basis; (3) have a process or flow to ensure the quality of published materials; (4) prioritizing freedom of expression and opinion; (5) maintaining the integrity of academic track records; (6) overriding business interests at the expense of intellectual and ethical standards; (7) willing to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions (withdrawals) and apologies when needed

1. Relationship with readers Readers should be informed about who is funding a research or other scientific work and what role the funder has in that research and publication

2. Relationship with the author The editor's decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication must be based on the importance of the article, its originality, and clarity, as well as the validity of the research and the relevance of the manuscript. The editor does not overrule the decision to accept the manuscript unless a serious problem is identified during submission. The editor may not cancel the decision to publish a manuscript that has been made by the previous editor unless a serious problem is identified. A description of the peer-review process (peer review) should be published, and editors must be biased to account for any deviations from the outlined process. Journal administrators must have a mechanism that allows authors to appeal editorial decisions. Editors must publish script writing guidelines for authors. Guidelines must be updated regularly and must refer to this code of conduct.

3. Relationships with sustainable partners (reviewers) Editors must provide assignment guidelines for peer reviewers including guidance for submitting the review results confidentially. Editors should ask peer-reviewers to disclose potential conflicts of interest before reviewing the manuscript. The editor must have a system to ensure that the identity of the peer reviewers is kept confidential.

4. Relationships with members of the editorial board Editors must provide assignment guidelines for editorial board members

5. Relationships with journal owners and publishers The editor's relationship with the publisher and/or owner must be based on the principle of editorial independence. Editors make decisions regarding the publication of articles based on the quality and suitability of the journal without interference from the journal owner

6. Editorial and peer review process The editor ensures that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Editors must have a system to ensure that manuscripts submitted to the journal remain confidential while they are in the review process. Editors must ensure the quality of published material

7. Maintain individual data confidentiality Editors must comply with the laws on confidentiality in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Indonesia. They must always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained during research or professional interactions.

8. Encouraging compliance with medical and health research ethics for research involving human or animal subjects Editors must ensure that published research conforms to internationally recognized ethical guidelines for medical and health research.

9. Matters relating to suspected violations Editors have a duty to act if they suspect an ethical violation. This assignment applies to both published and unpublished articles. Editors should not only reject articles that are suspected of committing violations. Ethically, the editor is obliged to investigate further.

10. Maintain the integrity of academic track records Statements that are false, misleading or inaccurate must be corrected with utmost care. Editors must follow COPE's retraction guidelines. 11. Intellectual property rights Editors must be aware of intellectual property rights issues.

12. Support the discussion process Editors encourage and are willing to consider criticism of a work published in the journal. The writer of the article being criticized should be given the opportunity to respond. Editors should allow research with negative results to be published

13. Conflict of interest Editors must have a conflict of interest management system in place for themselves as well as for staff, authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Adapted from: COPE Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for Journal Editors (www. ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR PEER-REVIEWER Peer-review must: Only willing to study the manuscript in accordance with their area of expertise and able to review the manuscript according to the required deadline Maintain the confidentiality of peer-reviews and do not disclose the details of the manuscript or the results of its reviews, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those released by the journal Do not use information obtained during the peer-review process for the personal benefit or other nor organizations, or to harm or discredit other parties State all potential conflicts of interest, seek advice from the journal if unsure whether something is a conflict of interest Is not influenced by the origin of the text, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the author, and must not be influenced by commercial considerations Provide a review that is objective and constructive, avoiding comments that are offensive or making comments that are defamatory and derogatory Provide a professional review that is accurate and in accordance with the expertise of the reviewer. Understand that pretending to be the other party during the review process is a serious offense Adapted from COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.