Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Lembing PJKR is a peer-reviewed electronic journal. 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. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The Editorial Board is responsible, among the other, for deciding which of the research papers/articles submitted to the journal should be published andpreventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable and the Lembing PJKR Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani Kesehatan dan Rekreasi does not tolerate plagiarism in any form.

Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society. 

1. Editors' Responsibilities

Publication Decisions

The editor of the Lembing PJKR is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Review of Manuscripts 

The editor must ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor, who may make use of appropriate means, to examine the originality of the contents of the manuscript and ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission

2. Reviewers Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

3. Author’s Responsibilities

Reporting standards

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

 Authors must certify that their work is entirely unique and original.

Redundancy

Authors should not concurrently submit papers describing essentially the same research. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Author(s) should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have influenced their research.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited only to those who have made a significant contribution to conceiving, designing, executing and/or interpreting the submitted study. All those who have significantly contributed to the study should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should also ensure that all the authors and co-authors have seen and approved the final submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.

Data Access and Retention

 Authors should retain raw data related to their submitted paper, and must provide it for editorial review, upon request of the editor.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the editor.

4. Penalties

Double Submission

If double submission was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the double submission was confirmed as intentional thing,
   • Review process will be terminated.
   • The reason should be sent to reviewers, editorial board and authors.
   • All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to Jurnal: Lembing PJKR for  two years.

Double Publication

 If double publication was found or noticed from other sources, editorial board should check the status. If the double publication was confirmed as intentional thing,
   • This will be reported to editorial board and author(s).
   • This will be sent to publisher published same (or very similar) paper.
   • Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in Section 4.
   • All authors’ name will be marked as black list, and these authors cannot submit any paper to Jurnal; Lembing PJKR for two years.