Publication Ethics

PKM: Jurnal Pajak dan Keuangan Multiparadigma upholds the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to ensuring the integrity of all stages of the publication process. All parties involved in the publication—authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers—must agree to adhere to the ethical guidelines outlined below.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate and objective description of the research performed and its significance. Data must be represented truthfully, and sufficient detail must be provided to allow replication by others. Any form of data manipulation or misleading information is considered unethical.
2. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to submit raw data for editorial review. They must retain such data for a reasonable time post-publication and provide access if needed to verify research findings, in line with open data policies.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: All submitted works must be original and properly cite any references or sources used. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable and will lead to rejection or retraction.
4. Multiple and Redundant Publications: Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Publishing the same content in multiple journals is unethical and violates journal policies.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources: All sources of information or contributions that influenced the research must be appropriately acknowledged. Authors must cite prior publications that are directly relevant to the current work.
6. Authorship and Contribution: Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the research. All co-authors must approve the final version of the paper. Any change in authorship must be approved by all listed authors.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, that could affect the interpretation of the research. All funding sources should be transparently declared.
8. Fundamental Errors in Published Work: If authors find significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must immediately inform the editor and cooperate in issuing a correction or retraction.
9. Hazards and Ethical Clearance: If the research involves the use of hazardous materials or human/animal subjects, authors must clearly identify these risks and provide documentation of ethical approval or compliance with safety regulations.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Evaluation: Editors must evaluate submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic merit—intellectual content, originality, and relevance—without discrimination regarding the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views.
2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board members, or the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished content disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor’s own research without the author’s written consent. Editors must withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.
4. Editorial and Publication Decisions: The editorial board is responsible for deciding which articles should be published. These decisions should be based on the quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript, as well as the journal’s policies and any applicable legal requirements related to defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.
5. Manuscript Review Process: Editors must ensure that submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening for originality and are assigned to qualified peer reviewers. They must manage the peer review process objectively and transparently, and provide authors with clear guidelines on review procedures.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Support for Editorial Decisions: Reviewers assist editors in evaluating the academic quality of manuscripts and may also help authors improve their work through constructive feedback.
2. Timeliness and Responsiveness: Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript or are unable to meet the review deadline must inform the editor promptly and withdraw from the review process.
3. Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively and respectfully. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Feedback should be expressed clearly, with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must not be shared, discussed, or used for any purpose other than the review process unless authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must avoid evaluating manuscripts where there is a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions. Any privileged information obtained through peer review must be kept confidential.
6. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant, uncited publications and notify the editor of any substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and other published works within their knowledge.