Policy

Peer review manipulation is any attempt to influence the process or the result in an improper way. The journal takes it seriously and follows the COPE guidance on peer review manipulation. It is handled under Publication Ethics.

Examples

• Authors who give false names or contact details of suggested reviewers, including email addresses that they control.
• Authors, or others on their behalf, who write or pretend to write reviews.
• Reviewers who take a review under a false identity, or who give a positive review in return for a favour.
• Citation manipulation: pressing authors to cite certain work in order to increase citation counts, or arranging reviews in exchange for citations.
• Groups of authors and reviewers who agree to review each other’s work in a way that hides conflicts.
• Taking the identity of another person, or sharing reviewer accounts.

How the journal protects the process

• Reviewers and their affiliations are verified before invitations are sent.
• Reviewer suggestions from authors are checked and are not used automatically. See Reviewer Selection.
• Unusual patterns, such as very fast reviews, repeated links, or reviewers with the same address pattern, are checked.
• Reviewers are asked to declare interests. See Reviewer Competing Interests.

If manipulation is found

• The editors ask the people involved for an explanation, and may inform their institutions.
• Manuscripts can be rejected, and published articles can be corrected or retracted.
• People who manipulate the process can be barred from the journal.

Reporting a concern

Write to ethnomath@uny.ac.id with the manuscript ID. Reports are treated as confidential.