Publication Ethics

Journal of Innovation and Community Engagement (JICE) - Publication Ethics Guidelines

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an important framework in the development of knowledge networks and a direct reflection of the quality of the work of authors and supporting institutions. Publication of this journal supports and embodies the scientific method, therefore it is necessary to agree on ethical standards of behavior that are expected by all parties involved in publishing, including authors, journal editors, and peer-reviewers.

Code of Ethics for Publications.

The ethical values in publications that are upheld in the code of ethics for publications of the Journal of Innovation and Community Engagement include:

1. Aspect of Neutrality, which is free from conflict of interest in the management of publications.

2. Aspects of Justice, the editor must evaluate each author's intellectual text content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, and political views of the authors. The editor also grants authorship rights to those who are entitled as authors/writers.

3. Aspect of Honesty, which is free from any kind of duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P). 4. Aspect of Confidentiality, editors and editorial staffs are not allowed to disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to other people other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other appropriate editorial boards and publishers (double blind principle).

5. Aspects of Conflict of Interest, manuscripts submitted that are not published may not be used in the editor's own research without written consent from the author.

Publication Decision.

The editor is responsible for making decisions about which articles to publish. Editors are guided by policy and limited by applicable regulations, such as determinations in the case of defamation, copyright infringement, originality, and plagiarism. In making decisions, each editor can discuss with other editors or peer-reviewers. The editorial board is responsible for deciding articles submitted to the journal for publication. Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for authenticity. Editors must regulate and manage peer-review fairly and wisely. Editors must describe the peer-review process in the informational form to authors and also indicate which sections of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should assign appropriate peer-reviewers for papers under consideration for publication by selecting persons with adequate expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Code of Ethics

Journal Manager Ethics

1. Determine the mission and objective of the journal, periodicity, policymaking and journal publishing decisions without any particular interest.

2. Organize the editorial board.

3. Define the relationship between publishers, editors, peer-reviewers, and other parties in a contract.

4. Appreciate things that are confidential, both for contributing researchers, authors/writers, editors, and peer-reviewers.

5. Implement norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyrights.

6. Review the journal's policy and submit it to the authors, the editorial board, peer-reviewers, and readers.

7. Create guidelines for rules and ethics of conduct for editors and peer-reviewers.

8. Publish journal regularly.

9. Ensure the availability of funding sources for the sustainability of journal publications.

10. Build a network of cooperation with research institutions and related agencies.

11. Prepare permits and other legal aspects.

Journal Manager Requirement

Journal Manager/Editor must have at least Scopus ID or papers or manuscripts published in National or International reputable Journals.

Editor Ethics

1. Match the needs of readers and writers, seeking to improve the quality of publications on an ongoing basis. 2. Implement processes to ensure the quality of published papers.

3. Prioritizing freedom of opinion objectively.

4. Maintain the integrity of the author's academic track record.

5. Submit corrections, clarifications, and apologies if necessary.

6. Responsible for the style and format of writing scientific papers, while the content and all statements in the written work are the responsibility of the author.

7. Actively solicit opinions from authors, readers, review partners, and members of the editorial board to improve the quality of publications.

8. Conducting periodic internal evaluations of the quality of the journal.

9. Support the author's initiative on publication ethics by including a clearance form in every manuscript submission.

10. Open-minded to new opinions or views of others that may conflict with personal opinions for the positive scientific contribution and innovation.

11. Avoiding subjective decisions by not defending a sole opinion, the author, or a third party by seeking a scientifically justifiable solution.

12. Encouraging writers to make improvements to their manuscript until they are worthy of publication.

Editor Publishing Ethics 

1. Fair Play: Editor is in charge of evaluating the intellectual content of a submitted manuscript fairly regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.

2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staffs must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and publishers, as appropriate.

3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, but not published may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.

Peer-reviewer Ethics

1. Reviewing the manuscript and submitting the results of the review to the editor as a base for determining the feasibility of a manuscript to be published.

2. The reviewer does not conduct a review of the manuscript that involves himself, either directly or indirectly. 3. Provide suggestions, input, and positive recommendations on scientific writing manuscripts.

4. Maintain the author's privacy by not disseminating the results of corrections, suggestions, and recommendations on a manuscript.

5. Encouraging writers to make improvements to manuscript.

6. Reviewing the manuscript that has been revised following predetermined standards.

7. The manuscript is reviewed promptly according to the style of the publication environment based on predetermined scientific principles (data collection methods, author's legality, conclusions, etc.).

Peer-reviewer Publishing Ethics

1. Peer-reviewer contributes to assisting editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with authors can also help authors to improve the manuscript.

2. Peer-reviewer must have papers or manuscripts that have been published in National or International reputable Journals.

3. The review must be carried out objectively. Peer-reviewer does not make personal criticism of the author. Peer-reviewer must express their views clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.

4. Any manuscript received for review, shall be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts may not be shown or discussed with others.

5. Information or privileged ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers may not review manuscripts that have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

6. Peer-reviewer must identify relevant works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. The reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they are personally known.

7. Peer-reviewer must review the manuscript within 1 week. The number of peer-reviewers for each manuscript is at least 2 persons.

Author Ethics

Author and/or co-author, is someone who has contributed significantly to a manuscript and shares responsibility and accountability for the results.

1. Ensure that those included in the list of authors have met the criteria as authors,

2. Collectively responsible for the work and content of articles including abstracts, introductions, methods, results and discussions, conclusions.

3. State the origin of the resource, either directly or indirectly.

4. Respond to comments made by peer-reviewers and the editorial board in a professional, scientific, and timely manner.

5. Inform the editor formally in written document if the author will withdraw the manuscript. 6. Make a statement that the paper submitted for publication is original, and has never been published anywhere and in any language, and is not in the process of being submitted to another publisher.

Author Publishing Ethics:

1. Manuscript Author: If the manuscript is written by more than one author, then one person is selected to be the main author, who is in charge of handling all correspondence regarding the manuscript and signing the publishing agreement on behalf of all the listed authors.

2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that what they have written is entirely original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others, it must be properly cited.

3. Multiple or Concurrent Publications: An author, in general, may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical behavior.

4. Source Acknowledgement: Proper acknowledgement of the work of others should always be given. Authors must cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work.


The papers published in the ICE Journals will be considered to retract in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at