Publication Ethics

Journal of Nesia Social Science (JNSSc), E-ISSN 3032-2650, is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Yayasan AL-HABIIBAH Surabaya. This statement sets out the ethical standards expected of every party involved in the publication process: the authors, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board, the reviewers, and the publisher. It is based on the COPE Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics and on Regulation of the Head of LIPI No. 5 of 2014 on the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication, which rests on three core values:

1. Neutrality – freedom from conflicts of interest in managing the publication;
2. Fairness – granting authorship only to those who are entitled to it; and
3. Honesty – freedom from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (DF2P).

Duties of the Publisher

• Determines the journal name, scope, publication frequency, and accreditation strategy.
• Appoints the editorial board and defines the relationship between the publisher, editors, reviewers, and other parties.
• Guarantees the editorial independence of the editors and the confidentiality of everyone involved in the process.
• Applies the norms of intellectual property rights, particularly copyright and licensing.
• Publishes the journal regularly and ensures the resources needed for its sustainability, including long-term archiving.
• Supports editors in handling corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions when needed.

Duties of Editors

• Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief decides which submitted manuscripts are published, based on their validity, originality, and importance to researchers and readers, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and legal requirements on libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
• Fair play. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual content, without regard to the authors' race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political views.
• Confidentiality. Editors and editorial staff do not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• Conflicts of interest. Unpublished material in a submitted manuscript is not used in an editor's own research without the author's written consent. Editors withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.
• Peer review management. Editors ensure that every manuscript is first screened for scope and originality, then reviewed fairly by qualified reviewers who have no conflict of interest.
• Correcting the record. Editors publish corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions whenever necessary.
• Quality improvement. Editors seek feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers to improve the quality of the journal continuously.

Duties of Reviewers

• Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review helps the editor reach a decision and helps authors improve their manuscripts.
• Promptness. A reviewer who feels unqualified, or who cannot complete the review on time, informs the editor immediately and declines the assignment.
• Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and are not shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
• Objectivity. Reviews are objective and constructive, supported by clear arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
• Conflicts of interest. Reviewers do not review manuscripts in which they have competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors or institutions involved, and do not use privileged information for personal advantage.
• Acknowledgement of sources. Reviewers point out relevant published work that has not been cited and report any substantial similarity between the manuscript and other published work.

Duties of Authors

• Reporting standards. Authors present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance, with enough detail and references to allow others to replicate it.
• Data access and retention. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review and should be prepared to do so within a reasonable time.
• Originality and plagiarism. Authors submit entirely original work and properly cite or quote the work and words of others. See the Plagiarism & Retraction Policy.
• Multiple or concurrent publication. Authors do not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, and do not publish essentially the same research in more than one primary publication.
• Authorship. Authorship is limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have approved the final version and agreed to its submission.
• Disclosure. Authors disclose all sources of funding and any financial or other conflict of interest that could influence the results or their interpretation, and state the limitations of the study.
• Use of AI. Authors disclose any substantial use of generative AI tools, in line with the AI Policy.
• Fundamental errors. Authors who discover a significant error in their published work promptly notify the editor and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article.
• Hazards and human or animal subjects. Authors clearly identify any unusual hazards involved in the work and confirm that research involving human or animal subjects has received appropriate ethical approval.

Handling of Misconduct

Suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, or authorship disputes, is investigated by the editors following the COPE flowcharts. Depending on the outcome, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction or an expression of concern, retract the article, or notify the authors' institutions. Concerns can be reported to the editorial office at ajurnalnesia@gmail.com.

Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Nesia Social Science