Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
PREVENIRE is reviewed in a peer review and published by the LPPM institut studi Islam Sunan Doe, published 6 issue every year (February, April, Juni, August, October and December). The following are the standards of ethical behavior used in this journal to publish articles in line with the publication ethics for Inovasia Editors. This publication ethics is expected to be obeyed by all parties involved in the magazine, namely writers, journal managers (editors), reviewers, and publishers. This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication and Authorship 

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two expert reviewers in the area of the particular article.
2. Review processes are double-blind peer reviews.
3. The factors considered in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Duties of Authors
1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed and objectively discuss its significance. Researchers should honestly present their results without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors' own, should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: The Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. The author is also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be identified as such, and the primary publication should be referenced.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, others who have made a significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In contrast, those who made less substantial or purely technical assistance to the research or the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 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.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editor
1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they post and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that the editor for originality initially evaluates each manuscript. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc., of the authors. An essential part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position to make decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring informed consent for the actual research presented and consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The journal's editor will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his research without the author's written consent. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers
1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been reported should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and proposal of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity: The submitted manuscript review must be done objectively, and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals' instructions on the specific feedback required unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of the double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. Suppose a reviewer feels they can't complete a manuscript review within the stipulated time. In that case, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.