Publication Ethics

Business Journal Publication Ethics at the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) listed in the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. We have personalized this COPE to suit our journals such as: Authorship, Complaints, Conflict of Interest Policy, Publication Ethics (Authors, Editors, and Reviewer), Privacy Statement, Copyright, Publication Fees, About this Publishing System, Open Access Policy, Peer Review Process, and Disclaimer. For details of this ethics, you can find the explanation below.

Publication Ethics - Author

1. Reporting Standards: Articles resulting from indigenous community service must be able to present accurate data based on the activities carried out and supported by sufficient details and references so as to enable others to cite the work.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original work, and if the author has used someone else's work and/or words, then these have been appropriately cited or cited.
3. Multiple, Excessive or Concurrent Publications: An author may not generally publish manuscripts that basically describe the same community service articles in more than one major journal or publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is an unethical publishing behavior that is not accepted.
4. Source Acknowledgment: Proper recognition of the work of others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that are influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to affect the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
6. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to revoke or correct the paper.

Publication Ethics - Editors

1. Fair Game: Editors at all times evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of their authors.
2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and appropriate publishers.
3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
4. Editor Criteria: Editors, both local and international, must have, papers or manuscripts published in the Journal, especially on the topic of Community Engagement. An editor can help the reviewer to provide input on the manuscript in addition to the results of the review by the reviewer.
5. Publication Decision: The editorial board is responsible for deciding which articles are submitted to the journal to be published. Validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive those decisions. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and limited by legal requirements that will apply regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Publication Ethics - Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also help authors to improve papers.
2. Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers both local and international must have papers or manuscripts that have been published in the Journal, especially on the topic of Community Service or Community Engagement. And also the reviewer has published articles with the same theme as the manuscript to be reviewed. Or the reviewer has a community engagement program with the same theme.
3. Standard of Objectivity: The review should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Any manuscript accepted for review should be treated as a confidential document. They should not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the author, company, or any institution associated with the paper.
6. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. Any statement whose observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention to any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers that they are personally aware of.
7. Review Period: Reviewers must review the manuscript within 1 to 2 months (maximum). And the number of reviewers for each manuscript is 2 reviewers (minimum) and 5 reviewers (maximum).
8. Review of Manuscripts: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for authenticity. Editors must organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review process in information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are being reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for articles considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.