JAMBURA ACCOUNTING REVIEW is a blind-review journal published by the Accounting Department of Economics Faculty of Universitas Negeri Gorontalo. This part describes the ethics that should be observed and adhered by all parties involved in the publication of this journal, including authors, chairman of editors, editorial boards, reviewers, and publishers.
Article publication within the blind-review journal is an important part of science development. The publication is a direct reflection of the quality of the author(s) and the institution where they are affiliated. The blind-reviewed articles support and are a manifestation of scientific approaches. Therefore, an ethical behavioral standard for all parties involved in the publication of this journal is described below.
EDITOR ETHICAL STANDARD
1. Publication Decision
The editor of JAMBURA ACCOUNTING REVIEW (JAR) is responsible for deciding which articles will be published. This decision is based on the validation of the articles and their contributions to researchers and readers. In their editorial tasks, the editor should adhere to editorial board policy and abide the law such as defamation, copyrights infringement, and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with other editors in the decision-making process.
2. Objective evaluation
The editor evaluates manuscripts based on intellectual content without discrimination.
The editor and editorial staff should not reveal all information regarding the accepted manuscript to anyone, including author(s), reviewers, reviewer candidates, and editorial board.
4. Conflict of Interest
The manuscript material sent to JAMBURA ACCOUNTING REVIEW and never been published cannot be used personally by the editor without any written acknowledgment from the author(s). The confidentiality of information and or ideas obtained from the blind review should be kept, and the information cannot be used for personal gain. The editor should reject to review the manuscript when there is a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the author(s), companies, or other institutions related to that manuscript.
5. Collaboration in investigation
The editor should take responsive steps when facing ethics complaints regarding accepted manuscripts and published articles. The editor should contact the author(s) and provide advice related to the complained articles. The editor can also carry out further communication with the institutions or related-research institutions. When complaint has been solved, things, such as publication related to correction, retraction, statement of concern, and other notes, can be considered to be made.
ETHICAL STANDARD FOR REVIEWER
1. Contribution towards the editor’s decision
Blind peer review by reviewer assists the editor in making decisions and assisting the author(s) to improve their manuscript through communication between reviewer and author(s). Peer review is an essential component in formal scholarly communication and scientific approach.
When the assigned reviewer feels that s/he has no sufficient qualification to review a manuscript or that s/he knows it is impossible to carry out a timely review, the assigned reviewer should immediately notify the editor.
Each accepted manuscript to be reviewed should be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
The review should be carried out objectively. Personal critics towards the author(s) is inappropriate. The reviewer should state his/her views clearly and supported with sufficient and appropriate scientific arguments.
5. Authentic and Complete References
The reviewer should identify the published works that have yet been cited by the author(s). A statement regarding an observation or argument that has been previously published should be accompanied by a relevant citation. The reviewer should inform the editor on substantial similarity or overlap between the currently reviewed manuscript and other published works, to the better knowledge of the reviewer.
6. Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials should not be used in personal research of the reviewer without any prior written consent from the author(s). Information or ideas obtained from peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal gain. The reviewer should reject the manuscript when there is a conflict of interest due to the competitive relationship or other relationship with the author(s), companies, or institutions related to the works being submitted.
ETHICAL STANDARD FOR AUTHOR(S)
1. Writing standard
Author(s) should provide an accurate paper/article based on the previously carried out study and present objective discussion on the significance of the study. The presented data should be sufficient to enable others to replicate the works. Fraudulent or inaccurate presentation of the paper is unethical and unacceptable conduct.
2. Access toward the Research Data
Author(s) can be asked to provide raw data of the manuscript to be reviewed and should be able to provide public access toward the data as much as possible, as well as storing the data for a certain period of time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism
Plagiarism is unethical and unacceptable conduct in a scientific publication. Author(s) should ensure that all parts of the presented work are an original work, and if the author(s) uses other works and/or other statements, the author(s) should cite them appropriately and correctly. There is a wide range of plagiarism, including acknowledging others’ work as one’s, copy or rewriting substantial part of others’ works as one’s without citing its source, also claiming others’ work as your work. Self-plagiarism or oto-plagiarism is also a form of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is citing the results of sentences from your own works that have been published without citing its sources.
4. Manuscript Submission Term
Author(s) should not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submission of one manuscript into more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable conduct in scientific works publication.
5. Inclusion of Reference Source
Acknowledgment of others’ works should always be carried out. Author(s) should always write down publications that are influential in their works. Personally obtained information, such as personal correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported without written consent from the source of information.
6. Authorship of the manuscript
Author(s) is a person(s) that significantly contributes to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the article. All parties that significantly contribute to the production of the article should be put as co-author(s). The corresponding author should ensure that all co-author(s) have read and given their consent on the final version of the works as well as have agreed to submit the work to be published.
7. Mistakes in Published Manuscripts
When the author(s) finds significant mistakes or inappropriateness in their published works, s/he is responsible for notifying the journal’s editor, and cooperating with the editor to retract or revise the article. When the editor obtains information from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author(s) is responsible for retracting or making corrections toward the article and should provide evidence to the editor on the appropriateness of the original article.