Publication Ethics

Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia (JAAI) uses double-blind review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. This ethical statement binds the behavior of the author, the editor, reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
 

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed JAAI journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. The articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for the author, the editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher.

Universitas Islam Indonesia as a publisher takes the duty of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.

JAAI is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
 

Duties of authors 

Authors should present a reliable and accurate the working paper as well as discussion of its significance. The data should be reported accurately in the article. A paper has to be equipped with the sufficient detail and relevant references. The fraudulent or any inaccuracy statements lead to unethical behavior are unacceptable.
 

JAAI may ask the Authors to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, for public access or retention purposes.
 

The authors have to ensure cite and quote appropriately when using the work paper of others. Any form of plagiarism from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others are unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
 

Basically, an author is strictly not allowed to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication concurrently. Avoid submitting a paper to more than one publication at a time, even if a submitted paper is currently under review and you do not know the status, wait to hear back from the publisher before approaching another journal, and then only if the first publisher will not be publishing the paper. It constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The author should acknowledge the work of others properly. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution only to the paper. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The others should be acknowledged properly. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
 

If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her 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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

Duties of editors

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
 

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
 

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, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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 (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.

 

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of reviewers

Editors are assisted by peer reviewers to decide the editorial aspects as well as for improving the quality of the papers.
 

Whenever the appointed reviewer is not able to review because of unqualified reason or unable to response promptly so he or she should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
 

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.

 

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

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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.

**This publication ethics are mostly adapted from copied from COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.