Publication Ethics

Analisis Kebijakan Pertanian is a journal that publishes original research articles, review papers, and case studies focusing on the socio-economic aspects and policy development in agriculture, including food crops, horticulture, plantation crops, livestock, and food-related issues in general. Topics may include natural and human resource management, infrastructure, innovation, agribusiness, food security, sustainability, and other relevant subjects. Submitted manuscripts must be original works that have not been published elsewhere in any language and are not under review by any other publication.

The following statement outlines the ethical standards that all parties involved in the publication process of this journal must uphold, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research and an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the journal's submission guidelines.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be identified as such, and the primary publication should be referenced.
4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made a significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, those who made less substantial or purely technical contributions to the research or publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript, including their inclusion as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other 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.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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 any applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish. They should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
2. Review of Manuscripts: The Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality. The editor should organise and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should clearly explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and indicate which parts of the journal are subject to peer review. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication, selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the authors' sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. Upholding the principle of editorial independence and integrity is an important part of the editor's responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions. Editors are in a powerful position when making decisions on publications, so it is very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should also critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented and consent for publication where applicable.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

 

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
3. Standards of Objectivity: The review of submitted manuscripts must be conducted objectively, and reviewers should express their views clearly, providing supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow the journals’ instructions on the specific feedback required of them, unless there are compelling reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will strengthen or extend the work.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Any privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. 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. In the case of a double-masked review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
5. Promptness: Reviewers should respond within a reasonable timeframe. The reviewers agree to review a manuscript only if they are reasonably confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. If a reviewer feels they can't complete the review of the manuscript within the stipulated time, then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.