Journal of Governance and Public Policy (JGPP) is a peer-reviewed journal published three times a year by the Magister of Government Affairs and Administration, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It is accessible both online as an open-access publication and in print. The ethical standards governing the publication process of articles in the journal are outlined below, covering all parties involved: authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, reviewers, and publisher. These standards are based on Elsevier's Publishing Ethics and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

1.     Reporting Standards

Authors of original research reports must provide an accurate account of their work and an objective discussion of its significance. Data should be accurately represented, and the paper should include sufficient detail and references for replication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.

2.     Data Access and Retention

Authors may be requested to provide raw data for editorial review and should be ready to do so within a reasonable timeframe.

3.     Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their works are entirely original. If they have used the work or words of others, appropriate citations or quotations should be included.

4.     Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable.

5.     Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of others' work is essential. Authors should cite publications that have significantly influenced the nature of their reported research.

6.     Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in substantive aspects of the research should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included, that no inappropriate co-authors are listed, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

7.     Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors are required to disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscript that could potentially influence the results or interpretation. Additionally, all sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

8.     Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and collaborate with them to retract or correct the paper.

9.     Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the research includes chemicals, procedures, or equipment that pose unusual hazards during their use, the author must clearly specify these in the manuscript.

 

DUTIES OF EDITORS

1.     Fair Play

Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on their intellectual content, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

2.     Confidentiality

The editor and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as deemed necessary.

3.     Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be utilized in an editor's own research without obtaining the express written consent of the author.

4.     Publication Decisions

The editorial board of the journal is responsible for determining the publication of submitted articles. Decisions are based on the validation and significance of the work to researchers and readers. Editors adhere to the policies established by the journal's editorial board and comply with legal requirements, such as those pertaining to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Collaboration with other editors or reviewers may inform these decisions.

5.     Review of Manuscripts

The editor must ensure that each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation for originality. They should organize and implement peer review fairly and judiciously. Editors are responsible for clearly outlining their peer review processes in the author guidelines and specifying which sections of the journal undergo peer review. It is important that editors select peer reviewers who possess adequate expertise and avoid individuals with conflicts of interest when considering papers for publication.

 

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

1.     Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review aids the editor in making editorial decisions and can also help authors improve their papers through editorial communications.

2.     Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that conducting a prompt review will be impossible, should promptly notify the editor and decline the review assignment.

3.     Standards of Objectivity

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

4.     Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shared or discussed with others except as authorized 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 advantage. Reviewers should decline to consider manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

6.     Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also bring to the editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published paper within their personal knowledge.

 

Allegation of Research Misconducts

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and in writing it up, or in the reporting of research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, the editors have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific records.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and editorial board will use the best practices of COPE and Allegations of research errors, falsification, and fabrication by Elsevier to assist them in resolving any complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to involve such misconduct, a retraction will be published and linked to the original article.

The first step in such a process involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations will be shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, will be requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional reviews and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be needed. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific records. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of such concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, or retractions, Journal of Governance and Public Policy will continue to fulfill its responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

The explanation of Allegation of Research Misconducts follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and Allegations of research errors, falsification, and fabrication by Elsevier, which can be accessed here.

Retraction

Papers published in Journal of Governance and Public Policy will be considered for retraction if:

1. there is 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 cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
3. they constitute plagiarism
4. they involve unethical research

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