Publication Ethics

Proceeding ICOLSS is a peer-reviewed scientific conference published by Universitas Islam Riau. The following are ethical agreements and standards for all parties involved in scientific publications, such as editors, reviewers and authors. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines

1. EDITOR'S DUTIES
The editor is responsible for making decisions on manuscripts to be published in the Proceeding ICOLSS. Editors may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and limited by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may discuss this with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

The editor will evaluate manuscripts according to intellectual content without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality

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

Conflict of interest

Unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript may not be used for the editor's own research without written consent from the author.

2. REVIEWER DUTIES

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

The review process can help the editor in making editorial decisions and communication between the editor and the author will help the author in improving the manuscript.

Speed

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research written in a manuscript or knows that the reviewer cannot review it promptly must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscript that has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Manuscripts may not be shown or discussed with others except with permission from the editor.

Objectivity Standards

Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not permitted. Reviewers must clearly show the results of the assessment along with supporting arguments.

Source Acknowledgment

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also draw the editor's attention if there are substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published papers of which they are personally aware.

Conflict of interest

Unpublished material contained in the manuscript may not be used for the reviewer's own research without written permission from the author. Specific information and ideas obtained through the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not review manuscripts that have a conflict of interest due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with any of the authors, or companies involved with the manuscript.

3. AUTHOR'S DUTIES

Reporting Standards

Authors must present an accurate report of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Primary data must be accurately represented in the manuscript and must contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to conduct further research. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are requested to provide raw data associated with the text for the editorial review process and must be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and in any case must be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

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

Multiple, Redundant, or Simultaneous Publication

An author may not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one conference or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one conference simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Source Acknowledgment

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

Paper Writing

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All persons who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors 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 have approved its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results 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 published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

4. ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH ERRORS

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in conference, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editor and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to help them resolve complaints and deal fairly with the violation. This will include an investigation of the allegations by the Editor. Submitted manuscripts found to contain such errors will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such errors, a retraction may be issued and will be linked 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 alleged to have committed the violation has a relevant conflict of interest.

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

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, conference, 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 such concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the Proceeding ICOLSS will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

5. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

Proceeding ICOLSS will have clear procedures for handling complaints against the conference, the Editorial Staff, the Editorial Board, or the Publisher. The complaint will be clarified to the person concerned regarding the complaint case. The scope of the complaint covers everything related to the conference's business processes, namely the editorial process, manipulation of discovered citations, unfair editors/reviewers, peer-review manipulation, etc. Complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

6. ETHICAL SUPERVISION

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors should clearly identify these in the manuscript to comply with the ethical conduct of research using animal and human subjects. If necessary, authors must provide legal ethical permission from legal associations or organizations.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the author must clearly justify whether the data or information will be securely hidden or not.