Publication Ethics

Our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. As such, this journal adheres to the COPE Code of Ethics and the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, as well as the Code of Ethics for Journal Publishers.

Some key points are listed below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for more details.

Duties of Editors

  • Editorial Fairness and Independence

Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic merit, originality, validity of the research, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, political opinion, or institutional affiliation of the authors. Editorial and publication decisions are completely independent of any governmental or external policy, with the Editor-in-Chief having full authority over the content and timing of the journal's publication.

  • Confidentiality

The editor and editorial staff will 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

The editor and editorial board will not use unpublished information from manuscripts for their personal or research purposes without the express written consent of the author. Any confidential information obtained during the manuscript processing process will be kept confidential. If a conflict of interest arises due to professional relationships, collaborations, or affiliations with the authors or related institutions, the editor must recuse himself from the manuscript and assign the manuscript to an independent editor.

  • Publication Decisions

The editor ensures that each submitted manuscript has been peer-reviewed by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining whether a manuscript is suitable for publication based on the validity of the research, its relevance to readers, reviewer input, and legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, and plagiarism. In making decisions, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

  • Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

The editor, in collaboration with the publisher and/or the scientific community, will respond promptly to any allegations of ethical violations in submitted manuscripts or published articles. All reports of unethical conduct will be investigated, even if they arise many years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE flowchart in handling allegations of misconduct. If the investigation reveals misconduct, the journal will publish a correction, retraction, statement of concerns, or other relevant note.

 

Reviewer Duties

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting editors in making editorial decisions and assisting authors in improving their manuscripts. This process is a fundamental part of scientific communication and is at the heart of academic endeavor. The AP-SMART Journal believes that every scholar participating in scientific endeavors has a responsibility to conduct peer review fairly and objectively.

  • Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor immediately and decline the review invitation so that an alternative reviewer can be contacted.

  • Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential and must be kept confidential. They must not be shared with or discussed with others without the permission of the Editor-in-Chief, who may grant permission only in special and exceptional circumstances. This provision also applies to reviewers who decline an invitation to review.

  • Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be clearly formulated and supported by arguments so that the author can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

  • Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant references that have not been cited by the authors. Any statements, findings, or arguments derived from previously published work should be accompanied by appropriate citations. Furthermore, reviewers should notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap with other published work of their own.

 

 

Editor-in-Chief
M. Januar Ibnu Adham