Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JUTEK: Journal of Usability and Technology Engineering Knowledge

Faculty of Informatics Engineering, Universitas Darul Ulum (UNDAR), Jombang

This statement is based on the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and on the prevailing national regulations governing scientific publication ethics in Indonesia. It is binding on all parties involved in the publication of JUTEK, namely the publisher, the editorial board, the reviewers, and the authors. JUTEK applies a double-blind peer-review process with a minimum of two independent reviewers for every submission.

1. Duties of the Publisher and the Editorial Board

  1. Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief holds full responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript. Decisions are based on scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, together with the reviewers' recommendations, and never on the affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, or seniority of the authors.
  2. Fairness and objectivity. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual content.
  3. Confidentiality. Editors and editorial staff shall not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, the assigned reviewers, and the publisher, and only to the extent required by the editorial process.
  4. Conflict of interest. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript shall not be used in an editor's own research without the written consent of the authors. An editor with any competing interest in a manuscript shall transfer its handling to another editor.
  5. Quality assurance. The editorial office performs a similarity check on every submission using Turnitin or an equivalent tool. The maximum acceptable overall similarity is 20 per cent, with no single source exceeding 5 per cent, excluding references and correctly attributed quotations.
  6. Corrections and retractions. The editorial board is prepared to publish corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or apologies whenever errors or ethical breaches are established, thereby preserving the integrity of the scientific record.
  7. Record keeping. All editorial correspondence, review reports, decision letters, and similarity reports are archived within OJS 3 for a minimum of five years.

2. Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to editorial decisions. Reviewers assist the editors in reaching a decision and assist the authors in improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.
  2. Promptness. A reviewer who lacks the required expertise or sufficient time to complete the review shall notify the editor immediately so that alternative reviewers can be invited.
  3. Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and shall not be shown to or discussed with third parties without the editor's authorisation.
  4. Standards of objectivity. Reviews shall be conducted objectively and supported by explicit scientific argument; personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgement of sources. Reviewers shall identify relevant published work that has not been cited and shall report to the editor any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or data manipulation.
  6. Conflict of interest. Reviewers shall decline manuscripts in which they have a personal, institutional, financial, or collaborative interest with respect to any of the authors.
  7. Use of privileged information. Information or ideas obtained through peer review shall be kept confidential and shall not be used for personal advantage.

3. Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting standards. Authors shall present an accurate account of the work performed together with an objective discussion of its significance, and shall provide sufficient detail and supporting data to permit independent replication.
  2. Originality and plagiarism. Manuscripts shall be the authors' own work; any use of the work or wording of others shall be appropriately quoted, cited, and referenced. Plagiarism in any form constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics.
  3. Multiple or redundant publication. Authors shall not submit the same manuscript, in substance, to more than one journal concurrently.
  4. Authorship. Authorship is restricted to those who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All co-authors shall approve the final version and the order of authorship; any change of authorship after submission requires the written consent of all authors.
  5. Acknowledgement of funding. All sources of financial support, research grants, and other assistance shall be disclosed in the Acknowledgement section.
  6. Conflict of interest. All financial and non-financial competing interests shall be disclosed.
  7. Research ethics. Research involving human participants, personal data, or field experimentation shall report the relevant ethical clearance and, where applicable, evidence of informed consent.
  8. Data availability. Authors shall retain the raw data, measurement logs, source code, or simulation files underlying the reported results and shall make them available to the editorial board on reasonable request.
  9. Errors in published work. When a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in published work, the authors shall promptly notify the editorial office so that a correction or retraction can be issued.
  10. Use of generative artificial intelligence. Generative artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors. Any use of such tools for drafting, translation, code generation, or data analysis shall be disclosed transparently in the Methods or Acknowledgement section, and the authors remain fully accountable for the entire content of the manuscript, including its accuracy, originality, and freedom from fabricated references.

4. Handling of Alleged Misconduct

Any allegation of ethical misconduct may be reported to the editorial office at [jutek@undar.ac.id]. The editorial board follows the COPE flowcharts:

  1. the allegation is verified against the submitted or published record;
  2. the corresponding author is invited to provide a written explanation within fourteen days;
  3. the editorial board issues a decision based on the evidence obtained.

Where misconduct is established, sanctions may include rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article accompanied by a public retraction notice, and a prohibition on further submissions by the authors concerned for a period of two years. A formal notification is also sent to the authors' home institution.