Publication Ethics

The scientific publication code of ethics statement is a code of ethics statement for all parties involved in the scientific journal publication process, including: Managers, Editors, Bestari Partners, and Writers/Authors. This statement on the code of ethics for scientific publications refers to the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, which essentially upholds three ethical values in publications, namely:

  1. Neutrality, namely free from conflict of interest in managing publications;

  2. Justice, namely giving authorship rights to those entitled to be authors/writers; And

  3. Honesty, namely free from Duplication, Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.

This scientific publication code of ethics guide was translated and adopted based on Elsevier's publication ethics policy which includes:


  1. Determine the name of the journal, scientific scope, periodicity, and accreditation if necessary.

  2. Determine editor membership.

  3. Defines the relationship between publishers, editors, publishers and other parties.

  4. Respect matters of a confidential nature, both for contributing researchers, authors/authors, editors, and bestari partners.

  5. Implement norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyright.

  6. Review journal policies and convey them to authors, editors, review partners and readers.

  7. Create code of conduct guidelines for editors and review partners.

  8. Publish journals regularly.

  9. Ensure the availability of funding sources for the sustainability of journal publication.

  10. Building cooperation and marketing networks.

  11. Improving the quality of the journal.

  12. Prepare permits and other legal aspects.

  13. Editor in Chief's decision is final based on the submitted article.


  1. Publication Decisions.

    The Bina Gogik Journal Editor is responsible for publishing and deciding which articles will be published from the articles received. This decision is based on validation of the article and the article's contribution to researchers and readers. In carrying out their duties, the Editor is guided by the policies of the editorial board and is subject to legal provisions that need to be enforced such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with reviewers or other editors in making this decision.

  2. Objective Assessment. The editor evaluates a manuscript based on its intellectual content without any discrimination in terms of religion, ethnicity, tribe, gender, nation, etc.

  3. Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about manuscripts that have been received to anyone, other than the author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, and the editorial board.

  4. Conflict of Interest. Article material sent to the Bina Gogik Journal and not yet published may not be used for the editor's personal research without written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor must refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution related to the manuscript.

  5. Cooperation in Investigation. Editors must take responsive steps if there are complaints regarding ethics regarding manuscripts that have been received or articles that have been published. The editor can contact the manuscript author and provide consideration of the complaint. Editors can also communicate further to relevant institutions or research institutes. When the complaint has been resolved, things such as publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other records, need to be considered.


  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Blind peer review by reviewers helps editors make decisions and can help authors improve their writing through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component in formal scholarly communication and scientific approaches.

  2. Punctuality. If the assigned reviewer feels that he does not have the qualifications to review a manuscript or knows that it is impossible to carry out the review in a timely manner, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.

  3. Any manuscript that has been accepted for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

  4. Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.

  5. Completeness and Authenticity of References. Reviewers must identify published work that has not been cited by the author. A statement of previously published observations or arguments should be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer must notify the editor of any substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and other articles that have been published, according to the reviewer's knowledge.

  6. Conflict of Interest. Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's personal research without written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must refuse to review a manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution related to the work.


  1. Writing Standards. The author must present an accurate paper/article on the research conducted and present an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article must be detailed enough with sufficient references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraud or inaccurate presentation of papers is unethical and unacceptable behavior.

  2. Access Research Data. Authors may be asked to provide raw data for articles to be reviewed and must be able to provide public access to such data if possible, and must be able to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

  3. Originality and Plagiarism. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical behavior in the publication of scientific work and is unacceptable. The author must ensure that all work presented is original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of other people, then the author must present the quotation appropriately. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as claiming someone else's writing as your own, copying or rewriting substantial parts of someone else's work without citing the source, and claiming the results of research conducted by someone else. Self-Plagiarism or auto-plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Auto plagiarism is quoting results or sentences from one's own published work without mentioning the source.

  4. Article Submission Terms. Authors may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical behavior in the publication of scientific papers and is unacceptable.

  5. Inclusion of Reference Sources. Proper recognition of the work of others must always be done. The author should mention publications that were influential in the preparation of his work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without written permission from the source of the information.

  6. Authorship The author is a person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writing in the article. All parties who have made significant contributions are listed as co-authors . The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are listed on the manuscript, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

  7. Hazards and Human Subjects. If the manuscript involves procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these clearly in the manuscript. If the manuscript involves human subjects, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and that the relevant institution and committee within the institution have approved them. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that consent has been obtained for experiments with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be considered. Consent, permission, and acknowledgment must be obtained if authors wish to include case details or other personal information in the manuscript. Written consent must be retained by the author and a copy of the consent or proof that such consent has been obtained must be provided to the journal upon request.

  8. Errors in Published Writings. When the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author is responsible for immediately notifying the journal editor, as well as collaborating with the editor to retract or correct the article. If the editor receives information from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, the author is responsible for immediately retracting or making corrections to the article or providing evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original writing.


Website Administrator is the person responsible for managing the journal website. Specifically, the scope of duties of a Website Administrator is as follows:

  1. Setting up a journal website;
  2. Configure system options and manage user accounts;
  3. Register editors, reviewers and authors;
  4. Manage journal features;
  5. View report statistics; And

Upload/publish papers that have accepted status .