Publication Ethics Statement

The publication ethics and malpractice policy of Iustitia Criminal Science is grounded in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Authors, reviewers, and editors involved with this journal are expected to be familiar with these standards. This page summarizes the key principles; readers are encouraged to consult the original COPE guidelines, linked at the end of this page, for full detail.

Duties of Editors

Editorial independence and fair evaluation. Editors assess submitted manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit — originality, validity, and significance to criminal law and criminal justice scholarship — and on their fit with the journal's Focus and Scope, without regard to the authors' nationality, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, or institutional affiliation. Editorial decisions are made independently of any external commercial or governmental interest, and the Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over the journal's editorial content and publication schedule.

Confidentiality. Editors and editorial staff do not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, assigned reviewers, and other relevant editorial parties.

Conflicts of interest. Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript in their own research without the authors' written consent, and will treat all privileged information obtained through the editorial process as confidential. An editor with a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript — whether through a competing, collaborative, or other relationship with any author or affiliated institution — will recuse themselves and assign the manuscript to another editorial board member.

Publication decisions. Every manuscript considered for publication is evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers through a double-blind peer review process. The final decision to accept, request revision of, or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on the manuscript's validity, its significance to the field, the reviewers' assessments, and applicable legal considerations regarding defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.

Responding to ethical concerns. When ethical concerns are raised about a submitted or published manuscript, the editorial board investigates the matter, regardless of how much time has elapsed since publication. Where an ethical concern is substantiated, the journal will publish an appropriate correction, expression of concern, or retraction, consistent with COPE's guidance.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review supports editors in reaching sound publication decisions and helps authors strengthen their manuscripts. The journal considers rigorous, good-faith participation in peer review to be a shared professional obligation of scholars in the field.

Promptness. A reviewer who does not feel qualified to assess a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, should notify the editor promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be identified.

Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss a manuscript with others, except with the explicit authorization of the Editor-in-Chief under exceptional circumstances. This obligation also applies to invited reviewers who decline the assignment.

Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with observations expressed clearly and supported by argument, so that authors can act on them constructively. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources and overlap. Reviewers should point out relevant published work that the authors have not cited, and should alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other work, published or unpublished, known to the reviewer.

Conflicts of interest. A reviewer with a conflict of interest — whether competitive, collaborative, or otherwise — concerning any author or affiliated institution should decline the review and notify the editor. Unpublished material disclosed through the review process must not be used in the reviewer's own research without the authors' written consent.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards. Authors of original research must present an accurate, honest account of the work performed and its findings, together with an objective discussion of its significance, with sufficient detail and citation to allow the work to be assessed and, where applicable, replicated. Knowingly inaccurate or fraudulent statements are not acceptable.

Originality and plagiarism. Authors must submit only original work, and any use of others' work or words must be properly cited. Plagiarism — in any form, from presenting another's work as one's own to substantial uncredited paraphrasing or copying — constitutes unethical conduct and is not tolerated.

Redundant or duplicate submission. A manuscript describing substantially the same research should not be submitted to more than one journal at a time, nor submitted if it has already been published elsewhere. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is not permitted.

Authorship. Only individuals who (i) made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or analysis of the study; (ii) participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript; and (iii) approved the final version for submission, should be listed as authors. Individuals who contributed in other ways (e.g., technical assistance) should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors, with their permission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the author list is accurate and that all co-authors have approved the final manuscript prior to submission.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest. Authors must disclose, at the time of submission, any financial or non-financial interest that could be perceived to influence the manuscript's findings or interpretation, including funding sources.

Participation in peer review. Authors are expected to cooperate with the peer review process, including responding promptly and systematically to reviewers' comments and providing supporting data or documentation upon reasonable request.

Errors in published work. When authors identify a significant error in their own published article, they must promptly notify the journal's editors and cooperate in issuing a correction or retraction as appropriate.

Duties of the Publisher

In cases of alleged or established research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher (PT. Andalas Borneo Justice) works with the editorial board to investigate the matter and, where warranted, to issue a correction, clarification, or retraction. The publisher is committed to the long-term accessibility and preservation of the journal's published content.

Section A — Publication and Authorship

All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in criminal law or criminal justice.
The review process is double-blind.
Manuscripts are evaluated on relevance, methodological soundness, significance, originality, and clarity of presentation.
Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
A revised and resubmitted manuscript is not guaranteed acceptance.
Rejected manuscripts are not re-reviewed.
Acceptance is subject to applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
No study may be published in more than one publication.

Section B — Authors' Responsibilities

Authors must confirm that the manuscript is their original work.
Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere.
Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.
Authors must participate fully in the peer review process.
Authors must issue corrections or retractions when errors are identified.
All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the research.
Authors must confirm that all data presented are genuine and authentic.
Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors.
Authors must properly cite all sources used in preparing the manuscript.
Authors must report any errors discovered in their published work to the editors.

Section C — Reviewers' Responsibilities

Reviewers must keep all manuscript-related information confidential and treat it as privileged.
Reviews must be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the author.
Reviewers should express their assessments clearly, with supporting argument.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
Reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other work known to them.
Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists with the authors or their affiliated institutions.

Section D — Editors' Responsibilities

Editors have full authority and responsibility to accept or reject a manuscript.
Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of the journal.
Editors weigh the needs of both authors and readers in shaping the publication.
Editors safeguard the quality and academic integrity of published work.
Editors issue corrections or errata where necessary.
Editors maintain a clear understanding of authors' funding sources.
Editorial decisions are based solely on a manuscript's significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope.
Editors do not reverse prior editorial decisions without substantial justification.
Editors preserve reviewer anonymity throughout the process.
Editors ensure that published material conforms to internationally accepted ethical standards.
Editors accept a manuscript for publication only when reasonably confident in its integrity.
Editors act on any suspicion of misconduct, whether the work is published or unpublished, and pursue the matter to resolution.
Editors act on credible evidence of misconduct rather than on mere suspicion alone.
Editors do not permit conflicts of interest to influence decisions among staff, authors, reviewers, or board members.

Reference sources:

For questions regarding this policy, please contact the editorial office at andalasborneojustice@gmail.com, or refer to the journal's related pages on Screening for Plagiarism and Peer Review Process.