Mustika Justice Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in all aspects of its publication processes. Our Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based on the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The following standards outline the expected behavior for authors, editors, and peer reviewers.

1. Duties of the Editors

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board are responsible for ensuring the quality and fairness of the peer review and publication process.

• Fair Play and Editorial Independence: Editors shall evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, validity, and clarity), without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial revenue, political considerations, or the personal relationships of the editors.

• Confidentiality: Editors and 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.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

• Decisions on Publication: The editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is guided by the journal's editorial policy and legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

• Investigation of Ethical Concerns: Editors will take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published article.

2. Duties of the Authors

Authors submitting their work to Mustika Justice must adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity.

• Reporting Standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper.

• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, generally, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

• Acknowledgment 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.

• 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.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

• 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 and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

3.  Duties of the Reviewers

Peer review is the critical cornerstone of academic publishing and assists the editor in making editorial decisions.

• Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.

• 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 withdraw from the review process.

• 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.

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

• Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

• Disclosure and Conflict 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.

4. Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior

Mustika Justice takes seriously all allegations of misconduct.

• Identification of Unethical Behavior: Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time by anyone.

• Investigation: An initial decision should be made by the editor-in-chief, who will consult with the Editorial Board, as appropriate. If the misconduct appears minor, the editor may handle it directly. If the misconduct is severe, the investigation will be conducted by a formal panel of the Editorial Board, following COPE guidelines.

• Sanctions (if misconduct is confirmed): Depending on the severity of the offense, possible sanctions may include, but are not limited to:

  • Informing the author's head of department or institutional ethics committee.

  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of the paper from the journal, and notification of the retraction to the author's institution and other citation indexes.

  • A formal notice or editorial detailing the misconduct.

  • A ban on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.