All parties involved in the process of publishing / publicizing SALASIKA Journal Managers, Editors, Sustainable Partners, and Authors must understand and comply with the norms / ethics of scientific publications. This statement refers to the Regulation of Head of LIPI No. 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication. Scientific works for publication, basically must uphold the three ethical values in publication, namely; (i) Neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in the management of publications; (ii) Justice, which gives authorship rights to those who are entitled as authors / authorship; and (iii) Honesty, which is free from Duplication, Fabrication, Forgery, and Plagiarism (DF2P) in publications. The rules on this page are also in accordance with the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
I. JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE ETHICS
1. Determining the name of the journal, the scope and aim of science background and the timeline of each publication.
2. Assigning the membership of the editorial board and peer review as their responsibility on the duties.
3.Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer review and other parties in the brief contract.
4.Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review on this journal.
5.Establishing the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, primarily for author copyrights.
6.Undertaking the policy reviews on the journals and provides to the authors, editorial board, peer review, and readers.
7.Deciding the ethics code guidelines for editor and peer review, including the behaviour.
8.Publishing journals on a regular basis with equality principal.
9.Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainable publication.
10.Raising cooperation and networking for journal dissemination.
11.Ensuring for the ethics, licenses and other legal aspects.
II. EDITOR ETHICS
1.Ensuring the quality of publications.
2.Qualifying eligible articles to maintain the process of published papers.
3.Securing discretion in communication, including delivering opinion, and ensuring the articles identity or author identity to other parties.
4.Maintaining author's academic track record for the respect integrity
5.Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawal, and an apology through the articles if necessary.
6.Authorizing responsibilities for styling and formatting the article, while the contents and any statements, and/or quotes inside belongs to authors.
7.Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer review due to integrity, loyality, quality and sustainability.
8.Willing to admit another opinion, point of view or different perspective from others based on courtesy for journal enhancement
9.Prohibiting in own opinion defends which may result in a false decision.
10.Encouraging and motivating the author, due to article revisions and improvements until it worth to publish.
III. PEER REVIEW ETHICS
1.Accepting the task from the editors to review articles and submitting review to the editor, as a consideration of publication decision.
2.Reviewing articles frequently (on time) in accordance with author guidelines based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the legality of the author, conclusions,etc.) in writing structures.
3.Reviewing articles in accordance with the journal style and scope rigorously.
4.Encouraging author/authors in making an improvements in their article by providing feedback, suggestions, critics, and recommendations.
5.Preserving authorship privacy by covering results, suggestions, and recommendations by author receipts.
6.Reviewers must not review any article which involved reviewers work, directly or indirectly.
7.Following guidelines in reviewing papers and assessing the evaluation form paper given by journal editors.
8.Reviewing papers substantively by not correcting the grammar, punctuation and mistype on reviewed article.
9.Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritizing paper benefit due to science development and dissemination, technology, and innovation; also considering development of scientific writing impacts.
10.Prohibiting in own opinion defends, the author or third parties which may result on decision reference becomes non-objective.
11.Establishing objectivity value and free from conflict interests.
12.Ensuring the confidentiality of article findings until it is published.
13.Focusing on the expertise and providing an article review appropriately and correctly.
14.Refusing to do review if an article not appropriate with the field of expertise. Instead, the peer review should be giving recommendation to the author if there is any other expert on the subjects.
15.Possessing an open minded personality in accepting opinion or perspectives which is different from personal opinion.
16.Renouncing article review if deadlines cannot be reached. If perr review was absent, he/she should be notified early to journal editors.
17.The review result must be presented in a honest, objective, and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are:
a) Accepted without revision
b) Accepted with minor revision (after revision by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review)
c) Accepted with major revision (after revision by the author, return to the peer review for re-review)
d) Rejected and recommended for other publication
e) Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because scientifically the paper is flawed.
18. Assigning article rejection for the last recommendation related to article feasibility and eligibility or with indication of ethics code and severe violations.
19. Reviewed article are not allowed to use for personal or third party interests. Furthermore, the use of reviewed particle contents ought to receive author/ authors permission