Ethics in Publishing
Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika (JMHT) is international journal that committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. This publication ethics is developed to avoid misconduct in research and publishing. This publication ethics clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing a scientific article in JMHT. This publication ethics is based on COPE’s Core Practices and Elsevier Publishing Ethics.
Editors will evaluate the submitted papers on prequalification review for suitability of further review process. A manuscript could be rejected without review process, due to four general reasons:
- The manuscript does not pass the plagiarism check.
- The topic of manuscript does not fit in the JMHT scope and may be better suited for publication elsewhere.
- The substance of the manuscripts does not meet JMHT standards; the data may be incomplete; the methodology used is not appropriate; lack of novelties and no advancement of the existing knowledge; or there are no consistency among objectives, research design/method, evidence, and conclusion.
- The manuscripts are not written following JMHT guidelines mentioned in Instruction to Authors.
JMHT is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review of the submitted for publication works and to preventing any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. JMHT chooses reviewers based on their expertise (whose most closely matches the topic of the paper). At least 2 reviewers are invited to evaluate a manuscript. In cases of controversy or disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review will be solicited. The JMHT editor mediates all interaction between authors and reviewers, and the review owned by JMHT.
Comments and suggestions from reviewers are taken seriously and weighed based on their expertise. However, JMHT editor reserves the final decision. The editor JMHT is responsible for final decision on article acceptance based on reviewer's opinions, suggestions, and comments.
JMHT evaluates manuscripts only based on the intellectual content. No race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophies of the authors are considered in the evaluation process.
JMHT checked all of submitted works by anti-plagiarism software (Plagiarism Checker X, Grammarly, and TurnItIn). Plagiarism detected works will be banned for further publication procedure.
JMHT assure the confidentially of the manuscripts, actors, and other related information on the publishing process. Only corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher are allows for the information.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the JMHT 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. JMHT editors should refuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member 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.
Post-publication, Discussion, and Correction
JMHT give space for debate post-publication due dispute arising from peer-review of rejected comments and published correction. JMHT also allow correcting, revising or retracting articles after publication. The retracting mechanism follows the Cope Retraction Guideline.
Authorship and Contributorship
Author is defined as individual who has made significant contribution to the study. The author should: (1) has substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, (2) involve actively in writing process in term of intellectual content, (3) involve actively in correction of mistake or content upgrading based on reviewers suggestion, and (4) approve the final version to be published. All contributors that meet all the criteria should be listed as authors.
All authors whose names are written in the manuscript should submit an approval of the version prior the publication process (during initial review).
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. 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.
Authors also should assure that the research is original, analysis only underlying data, and able to retain data for at least 5 years after publication to comply with the open data requirements of the JMHT.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors should give proper acknowledgment of the work of others. Publications that are influential for the nature of the reported work should be cited properly. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must get explicit or written permission from the source.
Originality of The Articles
All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. Authors who have been determined to have committed plagiarism will be banned for publishing in JMHT.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Author should not publish manuscripts describing high similarity in substances or the sentences used or the content in more than one journal or primary publication. JMHT consider that submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal in the same time is an unethical publishing behavior of the authors and is unacceptable.
Contributions to The Editors’ Decision
Reviewers should provide clear comments and opinions to editor that is used as one important consideration for editor in making publication decision. This means that JMHT editor is responsible for final decision on article acceptance based on reviewer's comments and opinions.
Contributions to The Authors’ Work
Reviewers should provide clear and constructive comments and suggestions to the authors in the form of providing written and unbiased feedback to the authors, indicating whether the writing is clear, concise and relevant. Reviewers should evaluate the scientific accuracy to improve the quality of the paper. Reviewers also should give relevant published work that valuable to elevate the quality of the manuscript.
In accordance to double-blind peer-review process, reviewer would not be informed the name of the reviewed manuscript. In term of substance, reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential documents, thus reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the review process.
Reviewers should assure a fair play by avoiding personal comments or criticism. Reviewers should avoid from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest. Reviewers should avoid suggesting the author to cite the reviewers’ publication/work, unless for genuine scientific reasons.
Unqualified reviewers for the reason of (1) his/her scientific foundation is not match/meet up with the reviewed manuscript or (2) or unable to catch up the review timeline thus review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Efi Yuliati Yovi
Editor in Chief of Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika (JMHT)