Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy

MAKARA Journal of Technology publishes peer-reviewed original articles on current issues in technologies and provides a broad-based sharing knowledge in various engineering scientific fields. The following statements describe ethical policy applied to all parties involved in the process of manuscript publication on MAKARA Journal of Technology Series, i.e. the authors, the editors, the peer reviewers and the publisher.


Decision on the Publication of a Submitted Manuscript

The Editor-in-Chief of MAKARA Journal of Technology together with Editor-in-Charge are responsible at the first time to decide whether the submitted manuscript is appropriate to be published on MJT journal or not. The Editor-in-Chief and all the Editorial-Board members are guided by the journal's editorial board policies, which are subjected to such legal rules regarding to copyright and plagiarism concern. For the next reviewing step process, the Editor-in-Chief may delegate to Editor-in-Charge to invite some highly competence reviewers to contribute reviewing the submitted manuscript. In reviewing process the Editor-in-Chief and Editor-in-Charge may confer with the reviewers in making the final decision for manuscript acceptance.

The Makara Journal of Technology utilizes the Ithenticate software to ensure NO kinds of plagiarism on the publications.

Fair play

Manuscripts must be evaluated solely based on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, and citizenship.


The Editor in Chief 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.


Contribution to editorial decision

Peer review assists the Editor in Chief and the Editor-in-Charge in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the main author may also assist the author(s) in improving the manuscript.


Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor as soon as possible and excuse himself from the reviewing process.


Manuscripts received for reviewing must be treated as a confidential document. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor in Chief. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviewing process should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author(s). Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also immediately prompt the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial-in-Charge's attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper(s) of which those have similarities.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewer(s) should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the author(s), companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript under reviewed.


Reporting standards

Author(s) report(s) an original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance(s). Underlying data should be presented accurately in the paper. The manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to refer the work.

Data Access and Retention

Author(s) may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the manuscript for editorial review process, and should be prepared to provide a public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Author(s) should ensure that they have written entirely an original work, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted on the manuscript.

Multiple and Concurrent Publications

The author(s) should not submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing action and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported work. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

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 own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.