Publication Ethics

Jurnal Mahkamah Keadilan (Journal of Justice Court) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Our policy is based on the best practice guidelines from leading organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This statement outlines the expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing in this journal: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards

  • Authors must present an accurate and objective account of the research performed, followed by an objective discussion of its significance.

  • The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

  • Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2. Originality and Plagiarism

  • Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works.

  • The work of others must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism, in all its forms (e.g., passing off someone else's paper as the author's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, or claiming results from research conducted by others), constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is strictly forbidden.

  • Self-Plagiarism/Salami Slicing: Authors should not submit papers that are substantially the same as or very similar to papers that have been previously published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

  • An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.

  • Submitting the same manuscript concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources

  • Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

5. Authorship of the Paper

  • Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

  • All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

  • The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

  • All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

  • Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

  • The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of all content.

2. Confidentiality

  • 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, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

  • Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2. Promptness

  • Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

3. Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4. Confidentiality

  • Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.