Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (JICT) is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal published by "Penelitian dan Pengabidan Pada Masyarakat (PPM)" Institut Teknologi Telkom Jakarta. The aim of this journal is to publish articles dedicated to all aspects of the latest outstanding developments in the fields of Informatics and Telematics (Telecommunication Technology). Here are the deal and ethical standards for all parties involved in scientific publications, such as editor, reviewer, and author. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines
1. DUTIES OF EDITORS
The editor of the Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (JICT) is responsible for taking decisions on manuscripts that will be published in the JICT. The editor can be guided by the policy of the editorial board and constrained by the requirements of applicable laws regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can discuss this with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Editors will evaluate the manuscripts in accordance with the intellectual content without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the author
The Editor and editorial staff should not provide any information about a submitted manuscript to someone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Conflict of interest
The materials that are not published in a submitted manuscript may not be used for the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
2. DUTIES OF REVIEWER
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The review process may assist the auditor in making editorial decisions and the communication between the editor with the author will assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Each manuscript that has been accepted for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown or discussed with others except with permission from the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
The review should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers must show clearly the results of the assessment along with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Conflict of Interest
Unpublished material contained in the manuscript must not be used for the reviewer's own research without the written permission of the author. Special information and ideas obtained through a review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts that have a conflict of interest due to a script that is competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with one of the authors, or a company involved with the script.
3. DUTIES OF THE AUTHOR
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The main data is to be represented accurately in the script. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references that allow others to do the research again. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
The author was asked to provide the raw data associated with the text for the editorial review process and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.
Fundamental errors in published work
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author�s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
4. ALLEGATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.
If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, JICT will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
5. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS
Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (JICT) will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to the respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.
6. ETHICAL OVERSIGHT
If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, the Authors must provide legal ethical clearance from the association or legal organization.
If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.