Publication-Ethics

Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter (JPKA) is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. This statement sets out the duties of everyone involved in publishing in the journal — authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher — and the steps the journal takes when those duties are not met. It follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and applies to every manuscript submitted, whatever its origin or outcome.

A journal that publishes research on character carries a particular obligation to practise what it studies. Honesty, integrity, fairness, and responsibility are not only the subject matter of JPKA; they are the terms on which it works.

1 · Core Principles

◯ Integrity
Published work must report what was actually done and actually found. Fabrication, falsification, and selective reporting are never acceptable.
 ⚖ Fairness
Manuscripts are judged on scholarly merit alone, regardless of the authors' nationality, institution, gender, religion, ethnicity, political views, or seniority.
▪ Confidentiality
Manuscripts, reviews, and correspondence are confidential documents, and may not be shared or used before publication.
 ★ Accountability
Everyone involved is answerable for their part in the process, and the journal corrects the record publicly when something goes wrong.

2 · Duties of Authors

  • Originality. The manuscript must be the authors' own work, not published elsewhere and not under review at another journal. Text, data, figures, and ideas taken from other sources must be cited.
  • No plagiarism. This includes copying from others, reusing one's own earlier text without citation (self-plagiarism), and paraphrasing closely without attribution.
  • Accuracy of data. Data must be reported accurately and retained for a reasonable period after publication. Authors should be prepared to provide the underlying data on reasonable request.
  • Authorship. Authorship is limited to those who made a substantial contribution to the work and approved the final version. Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are not acceptable. All contributors who do not meet the criteria should be named in the Acknowledgements.
  • Research ethics. Research involving human participants must have ethical approval, and informed consent must be obtained. For research involving children, consent must be obtained from parents or guardians and assent from the children themselves. Participants' identities must be protected.
  • Disclosure. Funding sources and any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest must be declared.
  • Generative AI. Any use of generative AI tools must be disclosed, naming the tool and the purpose. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and the authors remain fully responsible for the content.
  • Correcting the record. Authors who discover a significant error in their published work must notify the editors promptly and cooperate in issuing a correction or retraction.

3 · Duties of Reviewers

  • Accept an invitation only with the relevant expertise and the time to meet the deadline; decline promptly otherwise, suggesting an alternative reviewer where possible.
  • Declare any conflict of interest — recognising the authors, recent collaboration, being at the same institution, or a competing interest — and decline the invitation where one exists.
  • Treat the manuscript as confidential: do not share it, use its content for personal advantage, or contact the authors directly.
  • Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to generative AI tools, as this breaches confidentiality. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reviews.
  • Write objective, specific, and courteous comments supported by argument. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.
  • Do not ask the authors to cite your own work unless there is a genuine scholarly reason (citation coercion).
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other ethical concern to the editor confidentially.

4 · Duties of Editors

  • Decisions. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published, on the basis of scholarly merit, fit with the journal's scope, and the reviewers' advice — free from commercial or political influence.
  • Fair process. Editors ensure a timely, confidential, double-anonymous review, protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers, and explain decisions clearly.
  • Conflicts of interest. An editor with a conflict of interest withdraws from handling the manuscript. A manuscript submitted by an editor or an editorial board member is handled by another editor, and the editor-author is excluded from all information about its review.
  • Reviewer conduct. Editors monitor the quality of reviews and remove or edit inappropriate comments before sending them to authors.
  • Vigilance. Editors take reasonable steps to detect misconduct, including similarity checking, and act on credible concerns raised about published work, however long after publication they arise.

5 · Duties of the Publisher

The Institute of Research and Community Service, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, supports the editorial team in maintaining these standards, provides the platform and the resources needed to run the journal, and respects the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief. The publisher does not influence editorial decisions, accepts no advertising or commercial sponsorship that could compromise them, and ensures that published articles remain permanently available.

6 · Misconduct and How It Is Handled

The journal regards the following as research or publication misconduct:

Plagiarism Presenting another's text, data, figures, or ideas as one's own, in whole or in part.
Fabrication and falsification Inventing data or results, or manipulating data, images, or findings so that the research is not accurately represented.
Duplicate submission or publication Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time, or republishing substantially the same work without disclosure.
Salami publication Dividing one study into several papers to inflate the number of publications, without new contribution in each.
Authorship violations Omitting a contributor, adding someone who did not contribute, or changing the author list without the agreement of all authors.
Undisclosed conflicts Failing to declare funding, competing interests, or the use of generative AI.
Ethical breaches Conducting research without the required approval or consent, or exposing the identity of participants.
Citation manipulation Adding citations whose purpose is to raise citation counts rather than to support the argument.

How allegations are handled

Step 1 · Raising a concern. Anyone may raise a concern about a submitted or published article by writing to the editorial office with the specific grounds and any supporting evidence. Concerns are treated confidentially, and the identity of the person raising them is protected.
Step 2 · Initial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief examines the concern and, where it appears substantiated, gathers the relevant evidence, including similarity reports and the submission record.
Step 3 · Right of reply. The corresponding author is informed of the allegation and given a reasonable period, normally 30 days, to respond. The response is considered before any decision is taken.
Step 4 · Decision. The editors follow the relevant COPE flowchart. Where the matter is serious or unresolved, the authors' institution may be informed and asked to investigate.
Step 5 · Outcome. Depending on what is found, the journal may: reject the manuscript; require correction before publication; issue a correction notice; publish an expression of concern; retract the article; or decline future submissions from the authors for a stated period. Correction and retraction notices are published openly and remain permanently linked to the original article, which is not removed from the record.

7 · Similarity Checking

Every manuscript is checked with similarity-detection software at the initial screening stage, and may be checked again before publication. The editors read the similarity report rather than the percentage alone: a high score drawn from the reference list or from standard methodological phrasing is treated differently from a lower score concentrated in a single passage of copied argument. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity are returned to the authors or rejected.

8 · Complaints and Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding, or a procedural irregularity may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, explaining the grounds in detail. Disagreement with a decision is not in itself grounds for appeal. The appeal is considered by an editor not involved in the original decision, and the outcome is normally communicated within 30 days. Complaints about the conduct of the editorial process itself may be addressed to the editorial office, and are acknowledged within 14 days.

✉ Reporting a concern. Write to the editorial office at jpk@uny.ac.id, naming the article and setting out the specific grounds for the concern.

See also the Peer Review Process, the Copyright and Licensing policy, and the Author Guidelines. This statement follows the COPE Core Practices.