Publication Ethics
IJoMS (Innovative Journal of Mathematics and Sciences) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal published by Universitas Kebangsaan Republik Indonesia (UKRI). This statement sets out the ethical conduct expected of everyone involved in publishing an article in the journal: the editorial board, the editors, the authors, the reviewers, and the publisher. It follows the best-practice guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Why this statement exists
Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a building block in a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It reflects the quality of the work of the authors and of the institutions that support them. Agreeing in advance on the standards expected of each party is therefore part of the scientific method itself, not an administrative formality.
As publisher, Universitas Kebangsaan Republik Indonesia takes its supervisory duties seriously at every stage of publication. The journal accepts no advertising and no sponsored content, so no commercial revenue can influence an editorial decision. Where it is useful and necessary, the publisher and the editorial board will communicate with other journals and publishers about a case.
Duties of editors
Publication decisions
The editors decide which of the manuscripts submitted to IJoMS are published. That decision rests on the validity of the work and its importance to researchers and readers. Editors are guided by the policies of the editorial board and constrained by legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In reaching a decision the editors may confer with other editors or with reviewers.
Fair play
Editors evaluate manuscripts on their intellectual content alone, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, seniority, institution, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff disclose no information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, the reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript is not used in an editor's own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and are not used for personal advantage. An editor who has a conflict of interest with any author or institution connected to a manuscript withdraws from handling it and asks a co-editor to take over.
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editors in reaching a decision and, through the editorial communication with the author, helps the author improve the manuscript. Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication and every researcher who publishes has a duty to take part in it.
Promptness
A reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a manuscript, or who knows that a prompt review is impossible, should notify the editors immediately and decline, so that another reviewer can be approached without delay.
Confidentiality
A manuscript received for review is a confidential document. It is not shown to or discussed with anyone except as authorised by the editors.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews are conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers express their views clearly, with supporting arguments, so that the author can act on them.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited, and draw the editors' attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and are not used for personal advantage. Reviewers decline to assess manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or funders.
Duties of authors
Reporting standards
Authors report their work accurately and give an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data are represented accurately. A paper contains enough detail and enough references for others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors submit only entirely original work, and where the work or words of others have been used, they are appropriately cited or quoted. Every manuscript is screened with Turnitin; the similarity index must be below 25% after references and quotations are excluded. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant, and concurrent publication
An author does not publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable, as is dividing one study into several papers to increase their number (salami publication).
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others is always given. Authors cite publications that have influenced the reported work. Information obtained privately, in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, is used only with the explicit written permission of its source.
Authorship
Authorship is limited to those who have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data; who have drafted the manuscript or revised it critically; who have approved the final version; and who agree to be accountable for it. Everyone who meets those criteria is listed; those who do not are named in the Acknowledgements. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version and have agreed to its submission. Any change to the author list after submission requires the written agreement of all authors.
Use of artificial intelligence
AI tools cannot be listed as authors, because they cannot take responsibility for the work. Authors remain fully responsible for every part of the manuscript, including any part produced with AI assistance. Use of generative AI must be disclosed: help with language or writing is declared in the Acknowledgements, and use in data analysis or figure generation is described in the Methods, naming the tool and stating what it was used for. Undisclosed use may be treated as misconduct.
Data access, conflicts of interest, and funding
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of a study for editorial review, and should be prepared to keep such data for a reasonable period after publication. Authors disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be construed as influencing the work, and name all sources of financial support together with the role of each funder.
Hazards, human subjects, and animals
Work involving hazardous materials, procedures, or equipment must identify those clearly in the manuscript. Research involving human participants or animals requires a statement of ethical approval and of informed consent.
Fundamental errors in published work
An author who discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work must notify the editors promptly and cooperate in retracting or correcting the paper. If the editors learn of such an error from a third party, the author is obliged to cooperate, which includes providing evidence to the editors where requested.
Handling allegations of misconduct
Complaints
Complaints about the editorial process, the conduct of an editor or reviewer, or the handling of a misconduct case should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be addressed to the publisher. Complaints are acknowledged within five working days and answered as quickly as the investigation allows.
