p-ISSN : 2655-8661
e-ISSN : 2655-857x
SisInfo : Jurnal Sistem Informasi dan Informatika is a peer-reviewed journal published Universitas Informatika dan Bisnis Indonesia. This statement clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer and the publisher.
The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE Code of Conduct.
For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. Documentation showing consent for publication must be made available to the Editor on request and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in research work.
Important note: editors or the publisher may use software to screen for plagiarism.
Authorship and Authors responsibilities
Authors are responsible report research involving humans or animals:
Authors should supply research protocols to editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.
Transparency of authors
Authors must clearly disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests, support and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their own publication. In addition, authors should follow publication and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.
Editors are in a unique position to indirectly foster responsible conduct of research through their policies and processes. They should encourage authors to strive for, and adhere themselves to, the highest standards of publication ethics.
If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the journal/conference will carry out an investigation following the COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the author or authors in question will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. If misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, this may result in the Editor-in-Chiefâ€™s/Volume Editor's implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
The article can be also rejected by editors if it:
Lacks clear descriptions or explanations of:
- Hypotheses tested - The experimental design - Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics - Describes poor experimental design, or faulty or insufficient statistical analysis - Has poor language quality
The reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.
Reviewer is responsible for:
The reviewerâ€˜s recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and his thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.
note: adaptedfrom https://eudl.eu/ethics
p-ISSN : 2655-8661
e-ISSN : 2655-857x