Publication Ethics

Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen is a peer-reviewed journal, published triannually by Departemen Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen, Fakultas Ekologi Manusia, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Indonesia (Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Indonesia). The article submitted must be original, have not been published, not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and will not be submitted to any media during the review process. Our journal publishes articles only focused based on scope explained in the focus and scope section.

The following section clarifies the ethical behavior of all the parties involved in the act of publishing an article in the journal, including the author, editor-in-chief, the editorial board, the reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on Elsevier's Publishing Ethics and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL PUBLICATION

The publication of  an article in Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a clear reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody scientific methods. It is therefore important to agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior for all the parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, editor, reviewers, publisher, and society. The publisher of Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen is obliged to take all the stages of the publishing process seriously and to recognize its ethical standards and other responsibilities. Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Indonesia is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

 

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Publication Decisions

The editor of Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen is responsible for deciding the best eligible articles for publication. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors are guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and are constrained by the legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making their decisions.

Fairness

Editors will always evaluate manuscripts in terms of their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the 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 material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

 

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with authors may also assist them in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referees who feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or know that a prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and excuse themselves 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.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that has 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 undertaken, 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

Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

In general, authors should not 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 study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors, while others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project 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 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 Works

If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper.

Allegation of Research Misconducts

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and in writing it up, or in the reporting of research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, the editors have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific records.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and editorial board will use the best practices of COPE and Allegations of research errors, falsification, and fabrication by Elsevier to assist them in resolving any complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to involve such misconduct, a retraction will be published and linked to the original article.

The first step in such a process involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. 

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations will be shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, will be requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional reviews and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be needed. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific records. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of such concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, or retractions, Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen will continue to fulfill its responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

The explanation of Allegation of Research Misconducts follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and Allegations of research errors, falsification, and fabrication by Elsevier, which can be accessed here and here.

Retraction

Papers published in Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga dan Konsumen will be considered for retraction if:

1. there is 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)
2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
3. they constitute plagiarism
4. they involve unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed here.