Peer review is the basis of trust in JIPSINDO (Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial Indonesia). Any attempt to manipulate it is treated as serious misconduct, following the COPE position statement on the inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes, the COPE Core Practice on peer review processes, and the COPE flowcharts.

—  Suggesting fake reviewers, or real reviewers with email addresses controlled by the authors or a third party.

—  Reviewing one’s own manuscript, or a manuscript by a close collaborator, colleague, supervisor, student, or relative, without declaring it.

—  Review rings: agreements to give favourable reviews to each other’s work.

—  Coercive citation: a reviewer or editor asking authors to cite their own work, or the journal’s, without a genuine scholarly reason.

—  Trying to identify the authors or reviewers, or contacting them directly to influence the review.

—  Offering payment, gifts, or favours for a review or a decision, or using an agency that promises acceptance.

—  Submitting manuscripts from a paper mill, or the same manuscript through several identities.

—  Producing a review with generative AI, or uploading a manuscript to an AI tool, in breach of the Generative AI Policy.

—  Reviewers are chosen by the editors for their expertise, from verified profiles. Institutional email addresses and ORCID iDs are checked.

—  Reviewers suggested by authors are checked independently, and never make up the whole of the review panel.

—  Reviewers and editors declare conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript, and step aside where needed. See Conflict of Interest.

—  Manuscripts by editors or board members are handled by another editor, and the author has no access to the review.

—  Editors check reviews for quality and relevance, and watch for unusual patterns, such as very fast, very short, or very similar reviews, or reviews that request specific citations.

—  All communication about a manuscript goes through the journal system or the official address the Contact page.

1.  Review or production is paused, and the evidence is documented.

2.  The authors, or the reviewer or editor concerned, are asked for an explanation. The person who raised the concern is not named.

3.  If manipulation is confirmed before publication, the manuscript is rejected. Compromised reviews are discarded and the reviewers concerned are removed from the reviewer database.

4.  If it is found after publication, the article may be retracted, with a notice explaining the reason. See Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal.

5.  The authors’ institutions are informed in serious cases, and other journals are alerted where they may be affected. See Institutional Cooperation.

6.  Cases are handled under the Research Misconduct policy.

Anyone who suspects manipulation of peer review can report it to the Contact page, in confidence. See Whistleblowing & Ethics Complaints.

The editors look for signs such as suggested reviewers with non-institutional email addresses, reviews returned unusually fast or with very similar wording, requests to cite unrelated work, and reviewers whose identity cannot be verified through ORCID, Scopus, or SINTA. Suspected cases are handled under Research Misconduct.

Peer Review Process  ·  Research Misconduct  ·  Conflict of Interest  ·  Generative AI Policy  ·  Publication Ethics