Publication Ethics

The publication ethics statement constitutes a code of ethical conduct for all parties involved in the publication process of scientific journals, including the Journal Management Team, Editors, Reviewers, and Authors. This publication ethics statement refers to the Regulation of the Head of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications. In essence, it upholds three fundamental ethical principles in scientific publication:

  1. Neutrality, namely freedom from conflicts of interest in the management of scientific publications;
  2. Fairness, namely granting authorship rights to those who are legitimately entitled to be recognized as authors; and
  3. Honesty, namely freedom from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P) in scientific publications.

This publication ethics guideline has been translated and adapted from Elsevier's publication ethics policies, including the following:

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

  1. Determine the journal's name, academic scope, publication frequency, and accreditation, where applicable.
  2. Determine the composition and membership of the editorial board.
  3. Define the relationships among the publisher, editors, reviewers, and other relevant parties.
  4. Respect the confidentiality of information concerning contributing researchers, authors, editors, and reviewers.
  5. Apply applicable standards and regulations concerning intellectual property rights, particularly copyright.
  6. Review the journal's policies and communicate them to authors, editors, reviewers, and readers.
  7. Establish a code of conduct and ethical guidelines for editors and reviewers.
  8. Ensure that the journal is published regularly and consistently.
  9. Ensure the availability of financial resources to support the sustainability of journal publication.
  10. Establish networks for cooperation, dissemination, and marketing.
  11. Continuously improve the quality of the journal.
  12. Prepare the necessary permits and other legal requirements.
  13. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final with regard to submitted manuscripts.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR EDITORS

  1. Publication Decisions. The Editor of Ar Riyadah Journal is responsible for overseeing the publication process and deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published. Such decisions shall be based on the validation of the manuscript and its significance and contribution to researchers and readers. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Editor shall be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board and comply with applicable legal provisions concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may consult with reviewers or other editors when making publication decisions.
  2. Objective Evaluation. Editors shall evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their intellectual and scholarly content, without discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race, gender, nationality, or other personal characteristics.
  3. Editors and editorial staff shall not disclose any information concerning submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, and members of the Editorial Board.
  4. Conflicts of Interest. Unpublished materials contained in manuscripts submitted to Ar Riyadah Journal must not be used by editors for their own research without the author's explicit written permission. Information or ideas obtained through the blind peer-review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Editors shall decline to review manuscripts when they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript.
  5. Cooperation in Investigations. Editors shall take appropriate and responsive action when ethical concerns or complaints arise regarding submitted or published manuscripts. Editors may contact the authors and give due consideration to the complaints received. Where necessary, editors may also communicate with the relevant institutions or research organizations for further investigation. Once a complaint has been adequately addressed, appropriate actions should be considered, including the publication of corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other relevant notices.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Blind peer review conducted by reviewers assists editors in making publication decisions and may also help authors improve their manuscripts through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and constitutes an important part of the scientific approach.
  2. Timeliness. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that it will be impossible to complete the review within the required timeframe should promptly notify the editor.
  3. Every manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except with the authorization of the editor.
  4. Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments.
  5. Completeness and Originality of References. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement concerning an observation, argument, or finding that has previously been published should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Reviewers should also notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which they are aware.
  6. Conflicts of Interest. Unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the author's explicit written permission. Information or ideas obtained through the peer-review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the work.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS

  1. Standards of Reporting. Authors should present an accurate account of the research conducted and provide an objective discussion of its significance. Research data must be presented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and appropriate references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  2. Access to Research Data. Authors may be requested to provide the raw data underlying their manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, where feasible. Authors should also be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period following publication.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior in scientific publication and is unacceptable. Authors must ensure that all work presented is original and that, where the work and/or words of others have been used, they are appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism may take various forms, including presenting another person's work as one's own, copying or substantially reproducing another person's work without proper acknowledgment, and claiming research results conducted by others as one's own. Self-plagiarism or text recycling is also considered a form of plagiarism. Self-plagiarism refers to the reuse of substantial portions of one's own previously published work, including results or wording, without appropriate acknowledgment or citation of the original publication.
  4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication. Authors should not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgment of Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have significantly influenced the development of their work. Information obtained privately, such as through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, must not be used or reported without the written permission of the source of the information.
  6. Authorship. Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research reported in the manuscript. All individuals who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are appropriately included in the manuscript, that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work, and that all co-authors have agreed to its submission for publication.
  7. Hazards and Human Subjects. If the manuscript involves procedures or equipment that may pose unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify such hazards in the manuscript. If the manuscript involves human subjects, authors must ensure that it contains a statement confirming that all procedures were conducted in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations, institutional requirements, and applicable ethical standards, and that approval was obtained from the appropriate institutional review or ethics committee. Authors should include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained for research involving human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected. Appropriate consent, permission, and release statements must be obtained when authors wish to include case details or other personally identifiable information in the manuscript. Written consent should be retained by the authors, and a copy of the consent or evidence that consent was obtained should be provided to the journal upon request.
  8. Errors in Published Work. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are responsible for promptly notifying the journal editor and cooperating with the editor to retract or correct the publication. If an editor receives information from a third party indicating that a published work contains a significant error, the authors are responsible for promptly retracting or correcting the work or providing the editor with evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the original publication.

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR WEBSITE ADMINISTRATORS

A Website Administrator is an individual responsible for managing and maintaining the journal's website. Specifically, the responsibilities of the Website Administrator include:

  1. Setting up and maintaining the journal website;
  2. Configuring system options and managing user accounts;
  3. Registering editors, reviewers, and authors;
  4. Managing the journal's website features and functionalities;
  5. Monitoring and viewing statistical reports; and
  6. Uploading and publishing manuscripts that have been granted accepted status.