PUBLICATION ETHICS

Applied Information System and Management (AISM) is committed to the highest standards of research and publication ethics. This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, the Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Basis

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Core Practices, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
  • COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
  • Regulation of the Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia No. 9 of 2026 on the Accreditation of Scientific Journals, and its technical guidelines;
  • Regulation of the Head of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) No. 5 of 2014 on the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publication.

AISM upholds three basic principles: neutrality (free from conflicts of interest), fairness (equal opportunity for all authors based on academic merit), and integrity (free from fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and duplication).

Duties of Authors

  • Originality: the manuscript is the authors' own original work, has not been published before, and is not under consideration elsewhere. Similarity must be below 20% according to the Plagiarism Policy.
  • Reporting standards: the work and its significance are reported accurately and objectively, with enough detail to allow replication. Fabricated or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
  • Data: authors keep the underlying data and make them available under the Data Availability policy.
  • Acknowledgement of sources: the work of others is properly cited. Excessive or inappropriate self-citation and citation arrangements between authors or journals are not allowed.
  • Authorship: all listed authors meet the Authorship Criteria; names and affiliations are valid and listed with each author's consent.
  • Ethics approval: research involving human participants (including surveys and interviews) or animals reports the ethics approval as described below.
  • Use of artificial intelligence: any use of AI tools is disclosed according to the Generative AI Policy. AI cannot be listed as an author.
  • Declarations: every article includes four statements: (1) use of artificial intelligence, (2) author contributions, (3) funding, and (4) conflict of interest.
  • Errors in published work: authors who discover a significant error in their published article promptly notify the editor and cooperate to correct or retract it.

Duties of Editors

  • Publication decisions: the Editor in Chief decides which manuscripts are published, based on their validity, importance, relevance to the scope, and the reviewers' reports, within the limits of the law on libel, copyright, and plagiarism.
  • Fair play: manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content regardless of the authors' race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, institution, or political views.
  • Independence: editorial decisions are free from influence by the publisher, sponsors, advertisers, or commercial interests, and are never affected by payment of fees.
  • Confidentiality: information about a submitted manuscript is shared only with the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher as needed.
  • Conflict of interest: editors withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, as set out in the Conflict of Interest policy. Unpublished material may not be used in an editor's own research without the author's written consent.
  • Use of AI: editors do not upload unpublished manuscripts to AI tools and do not use AI to replace their own scholarly judgment or editorial decisions.
  • Integrity of the record: editors act on concerns of misconduct, and publish corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when needed.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution: reviewers help the editor reach decisions and help authors improve their work through substantive, constructive comments on the scientific content.
  • Promptness: a reviewer who feels unqualified or cannot complete the review on time informs the editor and withdraws.
  • Confidentiality: manuscripts are treated as confidential and are not shown to, or discussed with, others.
  • Objectivity: reviews are objective and supported by arguments; personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
  • No use of AI: reviewers do not use AI tools to analyse, assess, or write review comments, and do not upload any part of a manuscript to an AI application.
  • Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers point out relevant work that has not been cited and any substantial overlap with published work.
  • Conflict of interest: reviewers decline manuscripts in which they have a competing, collaborative, or other relationship with the authors or institutions.

Details are given in the Peer Review Process.

Duties of the Publisher

  • Ensures that editorial decisions are made independently and that commercial considerations do not influence them;
  • Provides the resources, systems, and archiving needed to maintain the journal and the integrity of the scholarly record;
  • Does not produce or broker manuscripts, promise acceptance or accreditation outcomes, offer guaranteed fast-track publication, or issue a Letter of Acceptance before acceptance;
  • Does not manipulate citations, metadata, or publication dates;
  • Supports the editors in handling allegations of misconduct and in communicating with other journals and institutions;
  • Develops the capacity and integrity of editors and reviewers through training, ethics briefings, mentoring, and evaluation.

More information is available on the Ownership and Management page.

Research Ethics and Ethical Clearance

Research involving human participants, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, user studies, or the use of personal data, and research involving animals must state the number and year of the ethics approval (ethical clearance) issued by a relevant ethics committee. Participants' informed consent and the protection of their personal data must be described.

For research with low or negligible risk, the ethics approval may be replaced by the authors' own statement of compliance with research ethics, which is assessed and accepted by the reviewers or editors. The statement is placed in the Research Method section of the article.

Example statement (low-risk research): "This study involved voluntary adult participants who gave informed consent before completing the questionnaire. No personally identifiable data were collected, and the data were analysed anonymously. The authors declare that the study complies with the principles of research ethics."

Academic Integrity Violations

The following are considered violations of academic integrity:

  • Fabrication: making up research data or information;
  • Falsification: manipulating research data, images, or information;
  • Plagiarism: using all or part of another person's work, or one's own published work, without proper attribution, including rewriting another's work without using one's own words even if the source is cited;
  • Unauthorized authorship: adding, omitting, or substituting authors improperly, as defined in the Authorship Criteria;
  • Undisclosed conflict of interest: producing work intended to benefit or harm a particular party;
  • Multiple submission or duplicate publication: submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal, or publishing the same work more than once;
  • Citation manipulation, misuse of AI, and other violations under applicable laws and regulations.

A similarity percentage alone does not prove plagiarism. Plagiarism is established when the similarity is significant or a large block of text corresponds to a specific source and is not a properly marked quotation.

Handling of Allegations

Concerns about possible misconduct, from any party, can be sent to the Editor in Chief through the Contact page. AISM handles every allegation transparently and with documentation, following the COPE flowcharts:

  1. Examination of initial evidence;
  2. Clarification from the authors or other parties concerned;
  3. Investigation, which may involve the authors' institutions;
  4. Decision by the Editor in Chief; and
  5. Corrective action.

Possible corrective actions are a correction (erratum or corrigendum) when the error does not invalidate the main findings, a retraction when misconduct or serious error makes the data, findings, or conclusions unreliable, and withdrawal of a manuscript that has not yet been published. Notices are public, explain the article, action, reason, and decision-maker, and are linked to the article, its DOI, and its metadata. Retracted articles are not deleted but are clearly marked as retracted. Details are given in the Research Misconduct, Retraction and Withdrawal, and Erratum and Corrigendum policies.