Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
JPF is a national peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the editorial board, editors, authors, peer reviewers and the publisher (Physics Education Study Program, University of Jember). This statement is based on the previous COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the current COPE's Core Practices.

Duties of Author

  1. Reporting Standard: Authors must discuss the important objectives of the research clearly and present the report data accurately. The research report must be detailed and contain references so that others can imitate the work. Reports that contain inaccurate data whether intentional or not constitute unethical or unacceptable behavior.
  1. Originality and Plagiarism: The work written must be completely original or not the result of palgiarism. Authors must include quotations correctly if using the work of others, either in the form of sentences or data.
  1. Multiple publishing or content similarity: An author may not publish manuscripts that describe the essence of the same research in more than one journal or publisher.
  1. Data Access and Retention: Raw data regarding editorial requirements must be provided by the authors. The raw data must be sent within a certain time.
  1. Source of Acknowledgment: Authors should cite publications or ideas that were influential in determining the nature of the work being reported.
  1. Report compiler: Anyone who has contributed significantly should be registered as a co-author. Parties who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project must be recognized or registered as contributors. Co-authors whose names are included in the report must strictly be eligible for inclusion, and all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the report and have agreed to publish the report.
  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must disclose in the text of the report any financial or substantive conflicts of interest that might affect the results or interpretation of the text of the report.
  1. Fundamental errors in published works: When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in published work, the author is obliged to immediately notify the journal or publisher's editor and cooperate with the editor to revoke or improve the work.
  1. Risk and Human or Animal as Subjects: If the research involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that are at high risk of use, the authors must mention them in the report manuscript.


Duties of Editors

  1. Manuscript Review: The editor must ensure the authenticity of any manuscripts received. Editors must be fair and wise in managing and using peer reviews. The editor explains the peer review process and indicates which parts of the journal were reviewed to the author. The editor selects a person with sufficient expertise as a peer reviewer. Editors should avoid people with conflicts of interest.
  1. Fair Play: The evaluation of the manuscript by the editor must be irrespective of the author's race, religious belief, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or political philosophy.
  1. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than potential authors, reviewers, reviewers, editorial advisors, and publishers.
  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished but mentioned material in the submitted manuscript may not be used in a private research editor without the written consent of the author.
  1. Publication Decision: The editorial board of the journal is responsible for deciding which articles to publish. The editor may negotiate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Duties of Reviewer

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviews help editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also help writers improve the quality of the manuscript.
  1. Standard Objectivity: Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism from the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must clearly express their views with supporting arguments.
  1. Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted for review must be confidential documents. Manuscripts may not be displayed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
  1. Accuracy: Any reviewer who is selected but feels ineligible to review the research reported in the script or finds out that a brief review is not possible should then notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  1. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Important information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers are prohibited from associating manuscripts with conflicts of interest caused by competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and any relationship with any authors, companies, or institutions the text of the report is associated with.
  1. Source of Acknowledgment: Reviewers must identify published works that are relevant but not yet cited by the author. A statement that previous observations, derivations, or arguments must be accompanied by relevant quotations. Reviewers should also raise the editor's attention to any substantial equivalence or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and other publications of other papers with which they are aware.