Consensus: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Sumpah Pemuda College of Law. The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and taking all possible actions against any publication malpractice. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including authors, editor-in-chief, Editorial Board, peer-reviewers, and publishers. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

Publication of an article in Consensus: A peer-reviewed Journal of Legal Science is an important cornerstone in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the author's work and the institution that supports it. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is important to agree on the expected standards of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.

The Sumpah Pemuda College of Law, as the publisher of Consensus: Journal of Legal Science takes its trusteeship over all stages of publishing very seriously, and we recognize its ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue does not impact or influence editorial decisions. The Editorial Board will assist with communication with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means falsification, fabrication, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and article writing by authors, or in reporting research results. If an author is found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving an article that has been published in a scientific journal, the Editor is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

Where misconduct is alleged, the Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE's best practices to help them resolve complaints and deal fairly with such misconduct. This will include investigation of the allegations by the Editors. Manuscripts submitted and found to contain such violations will be rejected. In cases where the published paper is found to contain such violations, a retraction may be published and will be attributed to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individual reporting the misconduct has a relevant conflict of interest.

If there is a possibility of scientific misconduct or other substantial research misconduct, the allegation is made to the corresponding author who, on behalf of all co-authors, is asked to provide a detailed response. Once the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases where misconduct is unlikely, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published in the form of a letter to the editor, and often including a notice of correction and correction to the published article is sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into 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 an evaluation of those concerns, such as correction, retraction with replacement, and retraction, Consensus: Journal of Legal Science will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions
The Editor of Consensus Journal: The Journal of Legal Science is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validity of the work at issue and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive the decision. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and constrained by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions.

Complaints and Appeals
Consensus: The Journal of Legal Science will have clear procedures in handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaint will be clarified to a respected person in relation to the complaint case. The scope of the complaint includes anything related to the business process of the journal, e.g. editorial process, manipulation of citations found, unfair editors/reviewers, manipulation of peer-review, etc. Complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines. Complaint cases can be sent via email to: [email protected]

Fair play
An editor evaluates a manuscript based on its intellectual content at all times without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality
Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's own research without written permission from the author.

Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review helps editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also help authors in improving the paper.

Promptness:
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.

Confidentiality:
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Objectivity Standard:
The review should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement whose observation, derivation or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they are personally aware.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts that have a conflict of interest caused by a competitive, collaborative or other relationship or connection with any author, company or institution associated with the paper.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards:
Authors of original research reports must present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately presented in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the work. False or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

Data Access, Storage, and Reproducibility:
Authors are requested to provide raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.

Originality and Plagiarism:
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others that the work has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications:
An author should not, in general, publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one major journal or publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behaviour.

Acknowledgement of Sources:
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship and Contributorship of the Article:
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, conduct, or interpretation of the reported research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be recognised or listed as contributors. Corresponding authors should ensure that all appropriate 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 agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed as affecting the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published work:
When an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her published work, it is incumbent upon the author to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

ETHICAL OVERSIGHT
If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards in their use, the authors should clearly identify these in the manuscript to comply with the ethical conduct of research using animal and human subjects. If required, the authors should provide legal ethics clearance from a legal association or organisation. If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the authors should provide a clear rationale regarding this whether or not the data or information will be safely concealed.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (COPYRIGHT POLICY)
As a journal author, you have the right to various uses of your article, including use by your organisation or employer. This Creator's Right can be exercised without the need to obtain special permission.

Authors who publish in Consensus journals have broad rights to use their work for teaching and scholarly purposes without requiring permission, including use for classroom teaching by the Author or the Author's institution and presentation at meetings or conferences as well as distributing copies to participants; used for internal training by the author's company; distribution to colleagues for their research purposes; used in subsequent compilations of the author's works; included in a thesis or dissertation; reuse of sections or excerpts of articles in other works (with full acknowledgment of the final article); preparation of derivative works (other than commercial purposes) (with full acknowledgment of the final article); voluntary posting on open websites operated by the author or the author's institution for scientific purposes (follow  CC BY-SA 4.0 ).

Authors and readers may copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as remix, modify and develop the material for any purpose, even commercial purposes, but they must give appropriate credit (citing the article or content), provide a link to the license, and indicate if there have been any changes. If you remix, modify, or expand on the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

PEER-REVIEW PROCESS POLICY
The Peer-Review process/policy is stated here:
https://lexlibrum.id/index.php/lexlibrum/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess

POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION AND CORRECTIONS
Consensus welcomes discussions and corrections to articles published by readers. If readers provide discussions and corrections to published articles, readers can contact the Editor-in-Chief via email explaining the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the Editor-in-Chief), the discussion and corrections will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. Dear authors can reply/respond to readers' discussions and corrections by sending their replies to the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the Editor can publish the answer as a Reply to the Letter to the Editor.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Editor in chief, Consensus: Journal of Legal Studies Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum Sumpah Pemuda

       

Dr. H. Firman Freaddy Busroh, SH., M.Hum.