•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics

BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi (cited as JBB) adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The following guidelines on authorship, editors and reviewers are designed to ensure a high-quality standard of ethics. The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institute and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details. Manuscripts that lack proper ethical consideration for human or animal subjects will not be accepted for publication.

For experiments that involve human subjects, authors must identify the committee that approved the experiments and include in their submission a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Authors using phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials in their study should refer to the CONSORT Statement for recommendations which facilitates complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. The JBB follows the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all aspects of publication ethics, in particular, protocols of research and publication misconduct. The authors must declare that all experiments on human subjects were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and that all procedures were carried out with the adequate understanding and written consent of the subjects. The authors must also certify that formal approval to conduct the experiments described was obtained from the human subjects review board of their institution and should be made available if requested by the JBB.

JBB adheres to the COPE guidelines that ensures a high-quality standard of ethics for authors, editors, and reviewers: .

Authorship

  1. Authors attest that the material has not been previously published and that they have not transferred any rights to the article to another party.
  2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and must properly cite others work in accordance with the approved references format.
  3. Authors should not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
  4. Authors should ensure that they follow the criteria for authorship as described in the JBB Author Guideline.
  5. Authors must not disclose any personal information that may identify their informants or subjects, such as overt descriptions, photographs or pedigrees. If photographs of the informants or subjects are essential to the article, the authors must receive written consent and state it clearly within the article.
  6. Authors should make all data and details of their work available to the editors if there are suspicions of data falsification or fabrication. To wider audience, authors should clearly state the availability and accessibility of data.
  7. Authors of the article should clarify any possible conflicts of interest such as their job role, research expenses, consultant expenses, and intellectual property.
  8. Authors are obliged to submit “A Statement of Authorship” whereby the corresponding Author outlines the contribution of each author on the paper.

Editors

  1. Editors are responsible for every article published in the BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi (JBB).
  2. Editors should assist authors, where possible, to ensure their articles adhere to JBB guidelines.
  3. Editor-in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers when making final decisions regarding publication.
  4. An editor must evaluate manuscripts objectively for publication; judging each on its merit without bias towards nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors. Editors should decline articles if there is a potential conflict of interest.
  5. Editors must ensure that documents sent to reviewers do not contain private information of the authors and vice versa.
  6. The editor's final decision should be relayed to authors in a timely fashion and will be accompanied by the reviewer's comments, unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks.
  7. If authors have a well-reasoned objection to a certain individual reviewing their work, editors should respect this request.
  8. Editors and all staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
  9. Editors will be guided by the COPE guidelines if there is a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.

Reviewers

  1. Reviewers are required to comment on possible research, ethical, and publication misconduct if they are suspected.
  2. Reviewers must complete the work in a timely manner and should notify the managing editor immediately if they cannot complete the work.
  3. Reviewers are to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript.
  4. Reviewers should not accept manuscripts for assessment if they believe there is a potential conflict of interest between them and any of the authors.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in proposing, producing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. .

  1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
  3. Manipulative citation is characterized by behaviors intended to inflate citation counts for personal gains, such as excessive self-citation of an author’s own work, excessive citation to the journal publishing the citing article, or excessive citation between journals in a coordinated manner.
  4. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism excludes authorship, credit, or collaboration disputes, intellectual property, or patent disputes
  5. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion

When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. As members of COPE, JBB will follow the COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct. In cases of suspected research or publication misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. It may be necessary for the Editors to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, such as the author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s). JBB may also seek advice from COPE and discuss anonymized cases in the COPE Forum. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article. The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient. Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, 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 the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, JBB will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record. .

Complaints and Appeals

Any authors who may have grievances about any aspect of their interaction with the JBB should e-mail the Editor-in-Chief at jbb@ui.ac.id. Every effort will be made to acknowledge the complaint within 7 days of receiving it. If required, the Editor-in-Chief will consult with other editors regarding the complaint. The Editor-in-Chief will liaise directly with the complainant and thoroughly explain the steps to resolve the matter. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

JBB requires authors to declare all conflicts of interest in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘Conflict of Interest’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no conflict of interest, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflict of interest”. The Editor may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Authors are also required to disclose all sources of institutional, private, and corporate financial support for their study. the research funding sources will be published under a separate heading entitled “Funding”.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. If a submitting author and editor of JBB have a relationship that may create a perception of bias, an alternative editor from another institute will be elected to oversee the manuscript. This editor will select the reviewers and make the final decision on the paper. The submitting editor will not have access to any information or correspondence relating to the submission that is not meant for the authors.

Potential conflict of interest for reviewers. The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: ‘If you know, or think you know, the identity of the author, or if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this paper (e.g., friendship or conflict/rivalry), please declare it immediately. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.' If a conflict of interest has been declared, standard policy declares that an alternate reviewer must be used; however, this is at the editors' discretion. JBB will follow the COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of potential conflict of interest, whether identified before or after publication.

Data and Reproducibility

JBB encourages authors to include supplementary material data sets and code, if any, that demonstrate the results shown in their final article. JBB policy encouraging the authors to share and make the data open is applicable only where this does not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns. JBB policies on data and reproducibility are based on the COPE guidelines.

Ethical Oversight

If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal, ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Intellectual Property

Journal policy about intellectual property or copyright is declared here: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jbb/policies.html

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

JBB accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by readers. In case the reader gives discussions and corrections toward a published article, the reader can contact the Editor in Chief by explaining the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the Editor in Chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. Respected Authors can reply/answer the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the Editor in Chief. Therefore, Editors may publish the answer as a Reply to Letter to the Editor

AI / Generative AI Usage

This policy is adopted and adapted with reference to Elsevier’s official guideline on the use of generative artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing, available at Elsevier’s Generative AI Policies for Journals. The purpose of this policy is to ensure ethical, transparent, and responsible use of generative AI tools and AI-assisted technologies in the editorial and publication processes of the BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi. It applies to all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors.

For Author

BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi allows the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and AI-assisted technologies, provided that they are used responsibly and under human supervision. Authors are required to verify the accuracy, completeness, and potential bias of AI-generated outputs, including automatically generated references. The use of such tools must be transparently declared through a Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies, specifying the tool’s name, purpose, and the extent of human editing or oversight. This declaration should be included in the manuscript before the reference list. Generative AI tools must not replace authors’ critical thinking, analysis, interpretation, or original intellectual contribution. All responsibility for the content remains with the human author(s), and AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors. Furthermore, the use of AI for creating or modifying images or illustrations is only permitted when it does not alter the underlying scientific information. If AI use is part of the research methodology, it must be clearly described in the Methods section.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] in order to [SPECIFY PURPOSE, e.g., check grammar, improve readability, assist in translation, or structure ideas]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed, verified, and edited the content as necessary and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article. Example:

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT (OpenAI) in order to check grammar and enhance language clarity. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

For Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts assigned for peer review and are prohibited from uploading any part of the manuscript to external generative AI tools or third-party AI systems. Such actions may compromise confidentiality and violate authors’ copyrights. Reviewers are also not permitted to use AI tools to draft or edit their review reports if doing so requires uploading confidential manuscript content. The use of AI to evaluate scientific merit, methodology, or the contribution of the work is not allowed. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, integrity, and quality of their evaluations.

For Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and must not upload manuscripts, decision letters, or any confidential content to external generative AI systems. Editorial decisions and scientific evaluations must be made entirely by human editors and editorial board members, not by AI systems. However, AI may be used as a supporting tool for technical or administrative purposes such as format checking, plagiarism detection, data integrity screening, or reviewer matching provided that these activities remain under human oversight. The final editorial decision and publication responsibility rest solely with the human editors.