This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher of JIPSINDO. It follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. A conflict of interest does not by itself mean that anyone acted wrongly, but an undisclosed one damages trust in the journal.

When in doubt, disclose. Authors complete a Disclosure Statement. Reviewers and editors with a conflict step aside. Failure to disclose can lead to rejection, a correction, or a retraction.

A conflict exists when a secondary interest may affect professional judgement about research. The journal recognises six types:

What to disclose

—  All financial and non-financial interests related to the work from the past three years, and any expected in future.

—  Full funding sources in a Funding section, with grant numbers and the funder’s role in design, data collection, analysis, writing, and the decision to publish.

—  Researcher–participant relationships, explained in the Method section together with how risks to voluntary participation and objectivity were handled.

—  Being an editor or editorial board member of the journal. Such manuscripts are handled independently (section 05).

How to disclose

1.  Complete the Disclosure Statement at the end of the manuscript, describing each interest and why it is relevant. The Author Declaration Form is submitted with the manuscript.

2.  If there is nothing to declare, use the standard statement: “No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).”

3.  State all interests in the declarations section after the conclusion, with the full names of funders and organisations.

4.  In the submission system, note significant conflicts in the Comments for the Editor, including reviewers to exclude and why.

5.  The corresponding author collects the declarations of all co-authors.

6.  Report any new interest that arises during review or after publication to the editor promptly.

Examples of wording

—  An author is employed by an organisation that was evaluated in the study. The organisation had no role in the analysis or in the decision to publish.

—  One co-author developed the instrument used in the study and had no financial benefit from it.

—  The participants were the authors’ own students. Data were collected by a research assistant with no connection to them.

A reviewer declines, or tells the editor at once, if the reviewer:

—  recognises the authors;

—  works at the same institution as the authors, or has collaborated or co-published with them in the past three years;

—  has a supervisory, family, or close personal relationship with the authors, or a known rivalry;

—  has a financial interest in the outcome;

—  is reviewing work that directly competes with the reviewer’s own unpublished work;

—  cannot give an objective assessment for any other reason.

Reviewers do not use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal advantage, and do not ask authors to cite their work unless there is a genuine scholarly reason. If a conflict emerges during review, the reviewer stops and informs the editor, who decides whether the review can be used. See the Peer Review Process.

Duties

—  Editors do not handle manuscripts where they have a reviewer-type conflict. The Editor-in-Chief assigns another editor.

—  A conflicted editor takes no part in decisions and has no access to review records.

—  Editors do not use unpublished information for their own research without the authors’ written consent.

—  Editors and board members give the Editor-in-Chief an annual declaration of relevant interests. A conflict of the Editor-in-Chief is managed by a senior board member or by the publisher.

Submissions by editors and board members

—  They may submit, and the manuscript goes through the same single-blind review and standards.

—  An independent editor handles it. The editor-author has no access to review information, including reviewer identities and editorial discussion.

—  The published article states that one or more authors are on the editorial team and that the manuscript was handled independently.

—  The journal monitors how many such articles it publishes, to prevent excessive publication by the editorial team.

The publisher guarantees editorial independence. Commercial, institutional, and political considerations do not influence decisions. Any fees, sponsorship, or advertising are kept separate from editorial decisions. See Ownership & Management.

1.  Report. An editor, reviewer, or reader may report a suspected undisclosed conflict to the Editor-in-Chief, who acknowledges it within 7 working days.

2.  Explanation. The person concerned explains within 14 days for a manuscript under review, or within 30 days for a published article.

3.  Assessment. The editor judges whether the conflict is relevant and could have affected the work or the decision.

4.  Action.

5.  Deliberate concealment is handled under the Research Misconduct policy.

Editors and reviewers receive no payment, honorarium, or other benefit that depends on whether a manuscript is accepted. Payment of the APC, or a request for a waiver, is handled separately from the editorial decision and is not visible to reviewers.

Publication Ethics  ·  Research Misconduct  ·  Correction, Retraction & Withdrawal  ·  Authorship Criteria  ·  Author Guidelines

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts

Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (Version 4). https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing