Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Menara Perkebunan (MP) as a communication media for research in plantation sector. We publish original research papers, or reviews of plant, microbial, and environmental biotechnology and its application in agriculture, health, and environment as well as other aspects of biotechnology and related topics that have neither been published elsewhere in any language nor under review for publication elsewhere. The following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher (Indonesian Oil Palm Research Institute Bogor unit). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines.

This scientific publication code of ethics is the code of ethics for all parties involved in the scientific journal publication process, namely managers, editors, reviewer, and author(s). The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications essentially upholds three ethical values in publication, namely:

(i) Neutrality: free from conflicts of interest in the management of publications;

(ii) Justice: granting authorship rights to protected persons as authors; and

(iii) Honesty: free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in publications

 

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in other scientific journals. Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected.

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 evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions.

 

Complaints and Appeals

The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline.

 

Ethical Issue

If the research work involves chemicals, human, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey ethical conduct of research using animals and human objects. If required, Authors must provide legal ethical clearance from the 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.

 

Authorship 
All persons listed as authors should qualify for authorship. Such authorship should be limited to persons who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, data analysis, or interpretation of the manuscript. All other persons who have participated in certain important aspects of the research but do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged. Authorship is the responsibility of the corresponding author; he or she should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the manuscript.

Request to add or remove author(s) or to arrange the author names of the accepted manuscript before it is published, must be explained by a letter to the Chief Editor. This letter must be signed by all authors of the paper. An author statement form must also be updated by every author and resubmitted to Chief Editor.

 

Responsibilities of authors 
Authors are obliged to follow in peer review process set by Menara Perkebunan journal. Authors are responsible for:

  1. Providing original and accurate data (in a clear, honest, and without duplication, data fabrication, data falsification, or plagiarism) concerning the manuscript submitted and providing the data when requested. 
  2. The submitted manuscript should not be under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where parts of the data have been published elsewhere, the sources must be acknowledged or cited accordingly. 
  3. When reproducing data from other sources, proper citation and permission are required. 
  4. Authors should ensure that studies involving animals are performed according to animal ethics and welfare. 
  5. Any potential conflict of interest has to be declared, including any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations related to their work that could affect their work. 
  6. All sources of financial support for the research project and study sponsor(s) (if any) and their role in the research or study should be disclosed in the Acknowledgement. 
  7. Authors are requested to be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
  8. The author is responsible for the confirmation submitted for the manuscript that has been written.
  9. The author does not mind if the manuscript is edited without changing the substance or main ideas of the writing

 

Responsibilities of reviewers

  1. Assist the editor in making editorial decisions on incoming manuscripts.
  2. Reviewers are responsible for the recommendations of the manuscripts they study. Reviewers are requested to assist in improving the quality of the manuscript through an objective review process within a scheduled period and contribute to the decision-making process on the manuscript.
  3. Manuscript review is carried out objectively, and supported by clear arguments. If reviewers find any published or submitted content similar to that under review, the editor has to be informed
  4. Reviewers are responsible for citations, references, duplications, fabrication data, falsification data and plagiarism of the manuscripts they study.
  5. Reviewers must always maintain the confidentiality of information and not use information from the text they are studying for personal interest.

 

Responsibilities of editors 

  1. Responsible for publishing the manuscript after going through the process of editing, reviewing, and layout in accordance with the rules for publishing Scientific Journals.
  2. Responsible for maintaining privacy and protecting intellectual property and copyright, and editorial freedom.
  3. Responsible for deciding which manuscripts are appropriate for publication through a meeting of the editorial board which refers to the applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, duplication, data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism. To detect plagiarism, the software "Ithenticate similarity test” is used.
  4. In the process of reviewing and accepting manuscripts, the editorial team is based on the principle of equality of treatment in making decisions to publish manuscripts without discriminating against the author's race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology.
  5. The editors and editorial team will not disclose any information about manuscripts or submitted manuscripts except with the permission of the authors.
  6. Unpublished manuscripts will not be used by the editor's research for their own benefit and will be returned directly to the author.

 

Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

MP Journal policy about intelectual property or copyright is declared here.

 

Peer-Review Process Policy

Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. Reviewers' comments will be sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Editorial Board will evaluate the reviewer’s comment and then send the final decision regarding the submission to the corresponding author based on reviewer’s recommendation. Peer-Review process/policy is declared here.

 

Plagiarism Screening Policy

MP will immediately investigate and reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. MP Editorial Board will ensure that every published article will not exceed 20% similarity Score. 

 

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

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

 

Article Withdrawal Policy

All article widrawal, article retraction, article removal, and article replacement should correspond with editors. Accepted or published articles should not be withdrawn by the author.