All authors who send the manuscript should follow the journal’s submissions requirements, or the manuscript will be returned to the author. Before sending to reviewers, the editor will remove the author's identity from the manuscript. Authors are invited to suggest at least the names of two experts on the manuscript topic as the additional option for reviewer. This does not imply that the paper will be reviewed by the suggested referees. The process of the article that will be published in PLANTA TROPIKA will undergo the double-blind peer review by the editors and reviewers by considering the substantial and technical aspects. Editors and reviewers provide constructive feedback on the evaluation results to the author. The Editorial board then either accepts or rejects the manuscript and informs the corresponding author of the final decision. On the acceptance of the manuscript, the author(s) will usually be requested to perform some revision of the contents and wording after the review, and final acceptance may depend on the extent of revision. The acceptance of the manuscript will be cancelled when the manuscript is not returned within a month for any revision. When the manuscript is not returned for two months, the manuscript will be considered withdrawn. Publication is subject to successful completion of any follow-up requested by our English Editor.

Rejected manuscripts
Rejected manuscripts including original illustrations and photographs will be returned to authors.

PLANTA TROPIKA publishes articles two times in a year (six-monthly) every February and August. Since 2016, the journal only published the electronic version of the articles that openly accessible on the website

Printed version of the journal only given to the contributors whose work was published in PLANTA TROPIKA.

OPEN ACCESS POLICY PLANTA TROPIKA

This Journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative

Budapest Open Access Initiative

An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge. 

For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature. But even in these limited collections, many different initiatives have shown that open access is economically feasible, that it gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature, and that it gives authors and their works vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact. To secure these benefits for all, we call on all interested institutions and individuals to help open up access to the rest of this literature and remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way. The more who join the effort to advance this cause, the sooner we will all enjoy the benefits of open access. 

The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to important research findings. There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited. 

While the peer-reviewed journal literature should be accessible online without cost to readers, it is not costless to produce. However, experiments show that the overall costs of providing open access to this literature are far lower than the costs of traditional forms of dissemination. With such an opportunity to save money and expand the scope of dissemination at the same time, there is today a strong incentive for professional associations, universities, libraries, foundations, and others to embrace open access as a means of advancing their missions. Achieving open access will require new cost recovery models and financing mechanisms, but the significantly lower overall cost of dissemination is a reason to be confident that the goal is attainable and not merely preferable or utopian. 

To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two complementary strategies. 

I. Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives Initiative,  then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.

II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.

Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature is the goal. Self-archiving (I.) and a new generation of open-access journals (II.) are the ways to attain this goal. They are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about by markets or legislation. While we endorse the two strategies just outlined, we also encourage experimentation with further ways to make the transition from the present methods of dissemination to open access. Flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation to local circumstances are the best ways to assure that progress in diverse settings will be rapid, secure, and long-lived. 

The Open Society Institute, the foundation network founded by philanthropist George Soros, is committed to providing initial help and funding to realize this goal. It will use its resources and influence to extend and promote institutional self-archiving, to launch new open-access journals, and to help an open-access journal system become economically self-sustaining. While the Open Society Institute’s commitment and resources are substantial, this initiative is very much in need of other organizations to lend their effort and resources. 

We invite governments, universities, libraries, journal editors, publishers, foundations, learned societies, professional associations, and individual scholars who share our vision to join us in the task of removing the barriers to open access and building a future in which research and education in every part of the world are that much more free to flourish.

February 14, 2002

Budapest, Hungary

Leslie Chan: Bioline International

Darius Cuplinskas: Director, Information Program, Open Society Institute

Michael Eisen: Public Library of Science

Fred Friend: Director Scholarly Communication, University College London

Yana Genova: Next Page Foundation

Jean-Claude Guédon: University of Montreal

Melissa Hagemann: Program Officer, Information Program, Open Society Institute

Stevan Harnad: Professor of Cognitive Science, University of Southampton, Universite du Quebec a Montreal

Rick Johnson: Director, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)

Rima Kupryte: Open Society Institute

Manfredi La Manna: Electronic Society for Social Scientists

István Rév: Open Society Institute, Open Society Archives

Monika Segbert: eIFL Project consultant

Sidnei de Souza: Informatics Director at CRIA, Bioline International

Peter Suber: Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College & The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter

Jan Velterop: Publisher, BioMed Central

PLANTA TROPIKA acknowledges that the author(s) have worked precisely in preparing the manuscript and peer-review procedures will be carried out by the Editors. However, for research purposes, there is also the possibility for published papers to be removed or even withdrawal

It is not likely to do and can only be done under exceptional circumstances.

Consequently, corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies, if necessary, will also be carried out with strict criteria to preserve confidence in the authority of its electronic archives. Our dedication and strategy are to preserve the quality and completeness of relevant scientific documents in the collections of researchers and librarians.

PLANTA TROPIKA recognizes the importance to scholars and librarians of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record and attaches the utmost importance to preserving confidence in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will remind the reader of the current status of the document and will also provide additional publication record information on the document. Applying the CrossMark icon is a promise made by the journal to keep content published and warn readers to change as and when occurred.

The articles published in Planta Tropika will be considered to retract in the publication if:

1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
2. It constitutes plagiarism
3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
4. It contains material or data without authorisation for use
5. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
6. It reports unethical research
7. It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
8. The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The mechanism of retraction follow the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) avaiable on https://publicationethics.org/node/19896

1. If the author demands the removal of his/her manuscript while the manuscript is still under peer-review, the author will be fined by paying 500,000 IDR or equivalent per manuscript.
2. If the withdrawal of the manuscript is approved for print, the author will be fined by paying 1,000,000 IDR or equivalent per manuscript.
3. If the manuscript has been published as "Article in Press" (articles that have been accepted for publication but which has not been formally published and will not have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), maybe "Withdrawn" From the PLANTA TROPIKA website. Withdrawing means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is deleted and replaced with an HTML page and PDF simply states that the article has been withdrawn. In this case, the author will be punished by paying 1,000,000 IDR or equivalent per manuscript.
4. If the author does not consent to pay the penalty, the author and his/her affiliation will be blacklisted for five (5) years to publish in this journal.
5. If the author requests removal of the manuscript, an official letter signed by the corresponding author and Head of Department of the affiliated institution should be submitted to the Principal Editor.

Article Correction

1. A small part of otherwise reliable publication reports incorrect data or proves to be inaccurate, particularly if this is the product of an honest mistake.
2. The list of author(s)or contributors is wrong (e.g. a deserving Author has been omitted or someone who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Corrections to peer-reviewed material fall into one of three categories:

1. Publisher correction (erratum): inform readers of a significant error made by the publisher/journal staff (usually a production error) which has a negative effect on the publication record or the scientific credibility of the article or on the reputation of the authors or journals.
2. Author correction (corrigendum): to inform readers of a significant error made by the authors which have a negative effect on the publication record or the scientific reputation of the paper, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.
3. Addendum: an addition to the article by its authors to clarify contradictions, extend existing work, or otherwise explain or update the details in the main work.

The decision whether a correction should be made is made by the editor(s) of a journal, often with recommendations from the members of the Reviewers or the Editorial Board. Handling Editors will approach the Writers of the paper concerned with a request for clarification, but with a final determination as to whether a correction is needed and, if so, which form of correction rests with the Editors.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Planta Tropika is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the Planta Tropika does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the Planta Tropika are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship

All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Review process are double-blind peer review. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. No research can be included in more than one publication.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
Authors must participate in the peer review process.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review 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.

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board

Research ethics

Research involving humans

Research studies on humans (individuals, samples, or data) must have been performed in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for research involving children, adolescents, and vulnerable or incapacitated study participants

Written informed consent must be obtained from the parent or guardian of any participants who are not able to provide full informed consent themselves. Age of legal adulthood is determined by the country in which study participants are based, which is typically between ages 16-18. A statement to confirm informed consent has been obtained must be included within the manuscript.

In settings where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript.

In accordance with the principles outlined in the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, informed consent must have been given with free will, under no coercion or bribery of any kind.

Retrospective studies

Researchers must confirm they have obtained ethical approval to conduct the study, as well as permission from the dataset owner to use the information in databases/repositories for the purposes of the research they are conducting. Where permission to use information from a database/repository is not required (e.g. where it is publicly available and unrestricted re-use is permitted via an open license), a statement to explain this must be included within the manuscript.

Data acquired must be kept anonymized unless otherwise advised by the owners of the content in the database. Where participants’ details are not required to be anonymized, authors must be able to provide evidence that written informed consent, including consent to publish, was obtained from participants. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript.

Survey studies

Research on indigenous communities

Authors should be aware of any specific research ethics approval and informed consent procedures which need to be followed in order to conduct research in communities where special processes for permissions may exist. Authors should also be aware of cultural sensitivities or any restrictions associated with the publication of content, including images included in their manuscripts. In many indigenous communities, additional permissions may need to be sought from community leaders or an Elder.

Authors working with indigenous communities are advised to consult appropriate guidelines for ethical research and publishing (including requirements for authorship) such as the AIATSIS Guidelines for ethical publishing, the National Inuit Strategy on Research and Interviewing Elders: Guidelines from the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Authors conducting research using media tools are advised to consult appropriate guidelines such as the On Screen Protocols & Pathways: A Media Production Guide to Working With First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Communities, Cultures, Concepts & Stories.