Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Please complete and return this form and retain a copy for your records.
Constitutional Review is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Center for Research and Case Analysis and Library Management, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. This statement is based on Elsevier's Policies and Ethics and COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journals conducted by the Constitutional Review is one of the important aspects of the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. A publication is a reflection of the quality of the work of the authors together with the institutions which support them. Therefore, to provide the readers with a high-quality journal, the Constitutional Review provides principles of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. It is hoped that all parties involved in this journal such as the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the association or sponsored journals, meet the standard provided by the Constitutional Review. Articles that are not in line with the standards will be removed from the publication at any time.
In addition, we, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, play a role to monitor all stages of the publication process and we realize our ethical responsibilities. We assure that all stages in the publication process such as advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue do not impact or influence the editorial decisions. Moreover, the Editorial Board will assist the communication between the journals with other parties such as other journals and/or publishers if it is needed by the editors.
In relation to the Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the Constitutional Review formulates the following standard:
Publication decisions
The editor of Constitutional Review is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.
Fair play
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness
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.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement 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.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgement 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 in 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 another substantive conflict 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 works
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.
ARTICLE-PROCESSING CHARGES (APCs)
Constitutional Review welcomes article submissions and does not charge Articles Processing Charges (APCs)
Article Submission: 0.00 (USD)
Article Submission Charges FREE
Article Publication: 0.00 (USD)
Article Publication Charges FREE
Access/download Articles : 0.00 (USD)
Libraries/Individuals can read and download any full-text articles (online or printed version) for FREE
To subscribe to the printed version, please contact us.
