- ADDITIONAL MENU
- FILES SUPPLEMENTARY
- JOURNAL HISTORY
Here are the deal and ethical standards for all parties involved in scientific publications, such as editor, reviewer, author, and publisher (STKIP Pasundan). This statement is based Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
1. DUTIES OF EDITORS
Editor of the Jurnal Master Penjas & Olahraga (JMPO) is responsible for taking decisions manuscripts will be published in the Jurnal Master Penjas & Olahraga (JMPO). The editor can be guided by the policy of the editorial board and constrained by the requirements of applicable laws regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Editors will evaluate the manuscripts in accordance with the intellectual content without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the author
The Editor and editorial staff should not provide any information about a submitted manuscript to someone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Conflict of interest
The materials that are not published in a submitted manuscript may not be used for the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
2. DUTIES OF REVIEWER
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The review process may assist the auditor in making editorial decisions and through the communication between the editor with the author will assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Each manuscript has been accepted for review must be treated as confidential documents. The manuscript should not be shown or discussed with others except with permission from the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
The review should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers must show clearly the results of the assessment along with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Conflict of Interest
Unpublished material contained in the manuscript must not be used for the reviewer's own research without the written permission of the author. Special information and ideas obtained through a review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts that have a conflict of interest due to a script that is competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with one of the authors, or a company involved with the script.
3. DUTIES OF AUTHOR
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The main data to be represented accurately in the script. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references that allow others to do the research again. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
The author was asked to provide the raw data associated with the text for the editorial review process and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
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.
Fundamental errors in published work
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The papers published in the Jurnal Master Penjas & Olahraga (JMPO) will be considered to retract in the publication if :
- They have 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)
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
- it constitutes plagiarism
- it reports unethical research
The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed here.