Publication Ethic

JESS | RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND EDITORIAL POLICY

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia. The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity, credibility, transparency, and quality of scholarly publications. This statement establishes ethical principles and responsibilities for authors, editors, peer reviewers, editorial staff, and the publisher throughout the research and publication process.

CORE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLICATION ETHICS

Research Integrity: Honesty, accuracy, originality, and transparency in research reporting.

Editorial Independence: Manuscript decisions based on scholarly merit and ethical standards.

Responsible Peer Review: Independent, objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations.

Fair Attribution: Appropriate recognition of authorship and intellectual contributions.

Accountability: Appropriate responses to ethical concerns and correction of the scholarly record.

1. Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The publication of scholarly articles in a peer-reviewed journal contributes to the development of reliable scientific knowledge. Published research reflects the scholarly responsibilities of authors and the professional standards of the institutions, editors, and reviewers involved in its evaluation.

JESS recognizes that responsible publishing requires a shared commitment to ethical conduct. All participants in the publication process must act with honesty, integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and accountability.

This publication ethics statement is informed by the principles and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including guidance on authorship, peer review, competing interests, ethical oversight, research misconduct, intellectual property, complaints, and post-publication corrections.

The journal's editorial practices should be implemented consistently with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and the policies formally adopted by the publisher and editorial leadership.

2. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, provides the institutional publishing framework for JESS and supports the responsible operation of the journal.

The publisher is expected to:

Support the integrity and continuity of scholarly publication;
Respect the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief and designated editors;
Facilitate transparent and responsible journal management;
Support appropriate mechanisms for addressing publication ethics concerns;
Ensure that publishing arrangements do not compromise scholarly evaluation;
Support the correction of the scholarly record when justified by evidence;
Maintain clear information concerning journal ownership, management, and publication policies.

Institutional, administrative, financial, or commercial interests must not improperly influence the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

3.1. Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief and appropriately designated editors are responsible for determining which submitted manuscripts are suitable for publication. Decisions must be based on originality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, methodological rigor, analytical quality, scholarly contribution, and compliance with publication ethics.

Editors may consult independent reviewers and members of the editorial team when making decisions. Reviewer recommendations provide scholarly advice but do not automatically determine the final editorial outcome.

3.2. Fair and Impartial Evaluation

Editors must assess submitted manuscripts on their scholarly merits without discrimination based on an author's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political views. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by personal relationships or inappropriate external pressure.

3.3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must protect confidential manuscript information. Details concerning submitted manuscripts, review reports, author correspondence, and unpublished findings must be disclosed only to individuals authorized to participate in the editorial process.

3.4. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose relevant competing interests and withdraw from editorial decisions where personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships could compromise impartiality. Such manuscripts should be handled by an independent editor.

3.5. Editorial Accountability

Editors must respond appropriately to legitimate concerns regarding research integrity and publication ethics, including potential plagiarism, fabricated evidence, inappropriate authorship, compromised peer review, and serious errors in published articles.

4. Duties and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in supporting editorial decisions and improving the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, fair, confidential, and evidence-based evaluations.

4.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers should provide clear recommendations supported by appropriate scholarly arguments and constructive comments that assist editors and authors in evaluating and improving the manuscript.

4.2. Competence and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess relevant expertise and can complete the evaluation within a reasonable period. Reviewers unable to meet these requirements should promptly inform the editor.

4.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not distribute, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript material without appropriate editorial authorization.

4.4. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, or unsupported judgments are inappropriate. Reviewers should explain scientific concerns clearly and respectfully.

4.5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify important relevant scholarship that has been overlooked and notify editors of suspected substantial overlap, unattributed material, or other potential research integrity concerns.

4.6. Disclosure of Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise impartiality. They should seek editorial guidance or decline the assignment when a material conflict of interest exists.

Reviewers must not exploit privileged manuscript information, manipulate citations for personal benefit, impersonate another reviewer, or delegate confidential review work without editorial permission.

5. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

5.1. Reporting Standards

Authors must present accurate, complete, and objective accounts of their research. Research questions, methods, data sources, analysis, findings, and conclusions should be reported transparently and supported by appropriate evidence.

5.2. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge the intellectual contributions of others. Plagiarism, including unattributed copying of text, ideas, data, images, or other scholarly materials, is unacceptable.

5.3. Multiple and Concurrent Submissions

Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals. Prior dissemination, related publications, or overlapping research outputs must be disclosed where relevant so that the editorial team can assess originality and publication eligibility.

5.4. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contributions. All listed authors should satisfy the journal's authorship requirements, approve the submitted manuscript, and accept appropriate responsibility for the integrity of the work. Individuals who do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged where appropriate.

5.5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must appropriately cite relevant sources and provide accurate bibliographic information. Fabricated references, misleading citations, inappropriate attribution, and citation manipulation are unacceptable.

5.6. Data Integrity

Authors must not fabricate, falsify, selectively manipulate, or misrepresent research data and findings. Research evidence should be reported honestly, including material limitations and results that do not support the authors' expectations.

5.7. Disclosure of Competing Interests

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests that could influence, or reasonably be perceived as influencing, the research or interpretation of its results. Sources of research funding and the role of sponsors should also be reported accurately.

5.8. Fundamental Errors in Published Work

Authors who discover significant errors, inaccuracies, or integrity concerns in their published work must promptly inform the editorial office and cooperate in determining whether a correction, retraction, or another appropriate action is necessary.

6. Research Ethics and Protection of Participants

Research involving human participants must be conducted ethically and in accordance with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and recognized principles of research integrity.

Where applicable, authors should:

Obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee when required;
Secure informed consent or another valid ethical basis for participation;
Protect participant privacy, confidentiality, and personal data;
Explain voluntary participation and any relevant participant rights;
Take appropriate precautions when conducting research involving vulnerable individuals or groups;
Obtain any separate consent required to publish identifiable information;
Report ethical approval or exemption information accurately.

Where formal ethics committee approval is not required, authors should explain the applicable ethical framework or institutional exemption where relevant. The absence of a formal review requirement does not eliminate the obligation to protect research participants.

Research in educational institutions, public organizations, and communities must respect legitimate permissions, confidential records, participant autonomy, and appropriate safeguards for personal or sensitive information.

7. Plagiarism, Fabrication, Falsification, and Research Misconduct

JESS considers research and publication misconduct to include practices that undermine the reliability, originality, fairness, or integrity of scholarly communication.

Examples of unacceptable practices include:

7.1. Plagiarism

Presenting another person's ideas, words, research data, images, or intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate attribution.

7.2. Fabrication

Inventing research data, observations, participants, interviews, findings, references, or other evidence and presenting them as authentic.

7.3. Falsification

Manipulating research materials, procedures, datasets, analyses, or results in a manner that misrepresents the actual conduct or outcomes of the research.

7.4. Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Republishing substantially the same research without adequate disclosure, justification, or appropriate acknowledgment of the original publication.

7.5. Inappropriate Authorship

Misrepresenting scholarly contributions through gift, guest, ghost, coercive, or unauthorized authorship.

7.6. Manipulation of the Publication Process

Interfering improperly with peer review, reviewer identities, editorial decisions, citations, or other processes intended to maintain independent scholarly assessment.

Similarity screening may assist the editorial team in identifying potential problems, but a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism or research misconduct. Suspected violations require contextual assessment and appropriate evaluation of the available evidence.

8. Authorship and Intellectual Contributions

The attribution of authorship must accurately represent the individuals responsible for conducting, interpreting, and reporting the scholarly work.

All authors are expected to:

Meet the applicable authorship criteria;
Make genuine and identifiable scholarly contributions;
Approve the manuscript submitted for publication;
Agree on the authorship order before submission;
Accept responsibility for the integrity of the work;
Disclose relevant relationships and competing interests;
Cooperate in resolving legitimate questions concerning research findings or contributions.

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must be explained and supported by appropriate agreement from the individuals concerned. Unresolved authorship disputes may require clarification or adjudication by the relevant research institutions.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

All participants in the publication process must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships that could affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, their professional judgment.

Authors must disclose relevant competing interests and funding arrangements. Reviewers must notify editors when relationships or interests could compromise independent evaluation. Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a material competing interest.

A disclosed competing interest does not automatically indicate misconduct. The appropriate response depends on the nature and significance of the interest, the risk to impartiality, and the measures available to protect editorial integrity.

Manuscripts authored by editors or Editorial Board members should be assessed through arrangements that prevent the involved individuals from influencing reviewer selection, confidential evaluation, or final publication decisions.

10. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors who use generative artificial intelligence or other AI-assisted technologies in research or manuscript preparation remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of the submitted work.

Responsible AI use requires:

Disclosure of material AI assistance where relevant;
Verification of AI-assisted factual statements and citations;
Protection of confidential and personal research information;
Prohibition of fabricated data, references, participants, or results;
Appropriate attribution of human scholarly contributions;
Human responsibility for the final manuscript.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be identified as authors because they cannot fulfill the accountability, approval, and responsibility requirements associated with scholarly authorship.

Editors and reviewers must protect confidential manuscripts and should not upload unpublished materials to external AI services without authorization and appropriate data-protection safeguards. Any permitted AI assistance must not replace independent scholarly judgment.

11. Handling Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct should be addressed fairly, confidentially where appropriate, and in accordance with relevant publication ethics guidance.

Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, research institutions, editorial personnel, or other individuals with relevant information. Allegations should be supported by sufficiently specific information to permit an appropriate preliminary assessment.

Step 1. Receipt of Allegation

The editorial office receives and records the concern, identifying the manuscript or publication involved and the nature of the alleged problem.

Step 2. Preliminary Assessment

The responsible editor examines the available information to determine whether the concern warrants further clarification or investigation.

Step 3. Request for Clarification

The individuals concerned may be invited to provide explanations, supporting records, or responses to the identified allegations.

Step 4. Independent Evaluation

The editorial team may consult independent experts or appropriate research institutions when technical or institutional investigation is necessary.

Step 5. Editorial Action

An evidence-based editorial response is determined, which may involve clarification, manuscript revision, rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction where justified.

Allegations must not be treated as established findings before appropriate assessment. Individuals concerned should have a reasonable opportunity to respond, and the journal should avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential or unverified information.

The journal may refer questions requiring formal investigation of research conduct to the relevant institutions. Editorial decisions regarding the published record remain the responsibility of appropriately authorized journal editors.

12. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

JESS recognizes the importance of maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record after publication. Significant errors or integrity concerns should be addressed through appropriate editorial notices and corrective actions.

12.1. Correction

A correction may be issued when an error requires public clarification but does not fundamentally invalidate the reliability of the article's principal findings and conclusions.

12.2. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be considered when credible questions about a published article remain unresolved and readers should be informed while an appropriate assessment continues.

12.3. Retraction

Retraction may be warranted when a published article contains serious errors, unreliable findings, substantial plagiarism, compromised research integrity, or other fundamental problems that render its conclusions unreliable.

12.4. Transparency of Editorial Notices

Editorial notices should clearly identify the affected publication, explain the reason for the action to an appropriate extent, and remain accessible and linked to the original article.

Corrections and retractions serve to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record rather than function solely as disciplinary sanctions against authors. Editorial responses should be proportionate to the evidence and guided by applicable COPE recommendations.

13. Complaints, Appeals, and Editorial Disputes

Authors and other stakeholders may communicate legitimate concerns regarding editorial procedures, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, or significant procedural errors.

A complaint or appeal should normally include:

The manuscript title or relevant article details;
The submission identification number, where available;
A clear description of the concern;
Relevant evidence or supporting correspondence;
The specific procedural issue requiring clarification or reconsideration.

The editorial office should assess complaints objectively and provide appropriate opportunities for clarification. Where a complaint directly concerns the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, assessment should be assigned to an appropriately authorized and independent individual.

Disagreement with a scholarly assessment does not automatically justify reversal of an editorial decision. Appeals should identify material errors, procedural irregularities, conflicts of interest, or significant new evidence.

14. Copyright, Intellectual Property, and Open Access

Authors must respect intellectual property rights and obtain appropriate permission when reproducing third-party materials that are not covered by applicable exceptions or permitted reuse arrangements.

The ownership and licensing of articles published in JESS are governed by the journal's applicable Copyright and Licensing Policy. Authors should review those terms before manuscript submission and ensure that their submissions comply with the relevant requirements.

JESS provides open access to published scholarly articles through its official website. Conditions for reuse, redistribution, adaptation, and attribution must be interpreted according to the license actually assigned to the published article.

Any publication charges must be disclosed transparently in the journal's Article Processing Charge policy and must not influence the independent evaluation of manuscripts.

15. Commitment to Research and Publication Integrity

JESS recognizes that publication ethics is a shared responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, publishing institutions, and the wider scholarly community.

The journal seeks to promote trustworthy scholarly communication through transparent editorial procedures, responsible research conduct, fair recognition of contributions, independent peer review, and appropriate responses to publication ethics concerns.

All parties involved in publication are expected to uphold standards that protect scientific credibility and support the dissemination of reliable research in education and the social sciences.

16. Supporting Standards and Related Policies

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Core Practices in Publication Ethics.
COPE Core Practices

COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Retraction Guidelines, August 2025.
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Related JESS Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Plagiarism Policy

Author Guidelines

Article Processing Charge