PESIRAH: Jurnal Administrasi Publik (PJAP) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Sriwijaya University. This journal is available in print and online and highly respects the publication ethic and avoids any type of plagiarism. This statement explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, the peer-reviewers and the publisher (Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Sriwijaya University). 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 journal of PJAP 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 the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the society.
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Sriwijaya University as the publisher of PJAP takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognize our ethical behavior and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on the editorial decisions. In addition, the Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Sriwijaya University 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 and writing an 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, PJAP will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
The editor of the PJAP 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.
Complaints and Appeals
PJAP journal will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline. The complaint cases should be sent by email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The editor at any time 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.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
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.
Duties of Authors:
Reporting standards: The authors of the paper should present precise information and an objective debate on the importance of the research. The background information in the document should be correctly depicted. A document should include enough details and references to enable others to reproduce the research. False statements or statements which are deliberately inaccurate are unethic and unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention: Authors may be requested to supply raw information for editorial evaluation in connection with the papers, and should be ready to provide public access to those information and be ready to maintain them for a reasonable period after publishing them in any case.
Originality and plagiarism: Authors must guarantee that they have written completely original works and that they have properly cited or quoted the job and/or phrases of others. All forms of plagiarism constitute unethical and inacceptable publication conduct.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: Author(s) should not publish manuscripts in more than one journal or main publication describing fundamentally the same study. The same manuscript is currently unethical and unacceptable for more than one journal to be submitted. The author should generally not submit a earlier published article for account in another journal.
Acknowledgement of sources: The work of others must always be properly acknowledged. Authors should quote publications which have influenced the nature of the job reported and put them at the reference section.
Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be restricted to the individuals who contributed significantly to the research. All those who contributed substantially should be identified as co-authors. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to make sure that all relevant co-authors are included on the paper and no inappropriate co-authors, all the co-authors have seen and agreed to publish the final version.
Hazards and human or animal subjects: When the job includes human subjects, the author should verify that the text includes an indication that all processes have been carried out in accordance with the relevant law provisions and institutional guidelines, and that it has been endorsed by the suitable governmental bodies. The authors should include in the manuscript a declaration that informed consent for testing with human topics has been acquired. The rights to the privacy of individuals must always be respected.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Any material or other conflict of interest that may affect the outcomes or interpretation of their manuscripts should be disclosed to all writers in their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works: If an author finds a major mistake or inaccuracy in the published job, it is the author's responsibility to notify the journal editor or publisher quickly and to collaborate with the editor in rectifying or correcting the document.
Duties of Editors:
It is the editor's responsibility to determine which articles are to be published in the journal. The editor follows the policies of the journal editorial board and be bound by legal requirements which will then apply to libel, violations of copyright and plagiarism. The editor can discuss this decision with other editors or reviewers. The editor assesses the intellectual contents of the manuscripts regardless of the author's ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy.
The publisher and editorial staff shall not communicate to any other person other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher any information on a submitted manuscript. Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript should not, without the express written approval of the author, be used for the publisher's own research. Privileged information or ideas derived from peer review shall remain confidential and shall not be used for their personal benefit.
Duties of Reviewers
Peer review helps the publisher make editorial decision and can also help the author in improving the paper through editorial communications with the author. Any chosen referee who feels unqualified to examine the research in a manuscript or knows that it can not be promptly reviewed should inform the editor and excuse himself from the process of evaluation. All manuscripts obtained for evaluation shall be regarded as private papers and shall not, except as permitted by the publisher, be shown or discussed with others.
Objective reviews should be performed. The author's personal critique is inadequate. With supporting arguments, referees should express their opinions obviously. Reviewer should recognize published works of concern which the writers have not quoted. The respective quote should accompany any declaration that a remark, derivation or argument had earlier been reported.
Any substantial similarity or overlap between the handbook to be taken into account and any other publicated paper with private information should be also brought to the editor's attention. Unpublished materials in the submission of manuscripts shall not be used without the written approval of the author in the reviewer's own studies. Priority data or thoughts acquired through peer review should not be used for private benefit and should be kept confidential. Reviewers should not take manuscripts with conflicts of interest into account.