Publication Ethics & Malpractice

Sam Ratulangi Politics Review (SRPolRev) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. Our ethical statement is based on the guidelines and best practice standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

COPE Guidelines & Ethical Commitment

All parties involved in the publishing process—authors, editors, peer reviewers, and publisher—must agree upon and uphold standards of expected ethical behavior.

1. Duties of Authors

Originality & Plagiarism:

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Proper acknowledgement and citation must be provided for all external sources and ideas used.

Multiple or Concurrent Submissions:

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship Criteria:

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.

Fundamental Errors in Published Work:

When an author discovers a significant error in their published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor to retract or correct the paper.

2. Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts based solely on intellectual merit without regard to race, gender, religious belief, or political philosophy.
Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author and reviewers.
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without written consent.
Involvement & Cooperation in Investigations: Editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.

3. Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and may help authors improve their paper.
Promptness: Any referee who feels unqualified or unable to review a manuscript within the timeframe should notify the editor immediately.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shown to or discussed with others.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively with clear supporting arguments and no personal criticism of the author.

4. Handling Research Misconduct

In cases of suspected or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher and editors will take all appropriate measures, including issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or full retractions following COPE Flowcharts.

Ethics Enquiries: To report suspected ethical violations or misconduct, contact the Chief Editor at srpolrev@unsrat.ac.id.