The publication ethics in ARSNET refer to the standards provided within the Core Practices of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). The Core Practices outlines the policies for authorship and contributorship, as well as overall peer review process. In addition, it also highlights the procedure for handling ethical concerns, such as allegations of misconduct, intellectual property conflicts of interest/competing interest, journal management, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, and post-publication discussion.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship is defined through the substantial contribution to the conception, design, interpretation and implementation of the work. Co-authors can refer to the individuals who provide substantial contribution or responsible towards the accountability of the work. Corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have been appropriately included and have approved the final version of the paper for submission towards publication. Other party involved that does not meet the criteria of authorship but provide contributions in the support of study, mentorship, data collection and coordinator of study can be listed in the acknowledgment.

Plagiarism

All manuscript submitted to ARSNET are routinely subjected to similarity check procedure with Turnitin to identify the works’ originality and detect any indication of plagiarism. ARSNET only accepts manuscripts that have not been previously published nor being considered for publication elsewhere. Any indication of plagiarism conducted by the authors will be followed-up by the editorial team.

Peer-Review Policy

ARSNET peer review policy aims to safeguard the journal’s quality of publication. The peer-review process consists of initial review by the editor, followed by double-blind review by the reviewers, and the decision by the editor. 

Initial Review: The editor determines the content suitability for the journal, based on relevance regarding aims and scope. Unsuitable manuscripts will be returned immediately.

Peer Review: Following the initial reviews, the submitted manuscripts are subjected to double-blind review with a minimum of two reviewers performing the anonymized review process and provide the evaluation and recommendation for the manuscript. The editor avoid the conflict of interest during the review process, assigning the reviewer based on field of expertise as well as academic experience.

Decision: After the review process is completed, the author(s) will be notified with the result, which may vary from accepted, accepted with minor revisions; accepted with major revisions; or rejected. The acceptability of the manuscript was made by the editor based on the informed recommendation of the journal's reviewers.

Duties of Editors, Reviewers and Authors

The following paragraphs discusses the ethical behavior of the editor, the reviewer, and the author as the involved stakeholders within the process of publishing articles in the journal.

Duties of Editors

Decision on the publication of articles: The Editors reserve the right in deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editors are guided by the ethical policies of the uphold by the journal and are subject to copyright and plagiarism legal policies. The final decision can be taken in conferment with the editorial board members and/or reviewers.

Fair play: The evaluation of manuscript is performed based on its intellectual quality. Submitted manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without concern to the author's race, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, sexual orientation, and religious belief.

Confidentiality: The information regarding the submitted manuscript will not be disclosed by anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. The editor, the editorial board members, and any editorial staffs are responsible to safeguard such information.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest:  The editors is responsible to ensure that the authors have declare all conflicts and competing interest and assure that all contributors have been appropriately named in the acknowledgements.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decision: The reviewers support the editors and the editorial boards in evaluating the paper as the basis of the editorial decisions. The editorial communications with author provide assistance for further improvement towards the manuscript.

Promptness: Assigned referee who are unable to provide review in the requested time frame or perceive that the manuscript is beyond their expertise should notify the editor and release him/herself from the review process.

Confidentiality: The submitted manuscripts are confidential documents who shall not be seen and discussed by others except as permitted by the editor. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Particular ideas or information demonstrated through peer review should not be used for personal uses.

Standards of objectivity: Reviewers should objectively conduct the peer review process. Personal criticism is not allowed. Reviewers are expected to provide their views and feedback clearly with coherent arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should examine statement of the authors that requires relevant citation. If necessary, reviewers are encouraged to outline any significant published work that need to be cited by the authors. Should the reviewer have a personal information of any significant similarity between manuscripts under consideration or published paper elsewhere, disclosure towards the editors/editorial board is highly urged.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest they might have in reviewing particular manuscripts due to any collaborative, competitive, or other relationships with the authors or other institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards: Authors should ensure an accurate account of the study as well as an objective interpretation and further discussion on its knowledge significance. Any underlying data should be demonstrated and articulated clearly in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references that enable further replication of the study.

Data access and retention: The raw data in connection with a particular paper may be requested within the process of editorial review. Authors are expected to provide public access towards such data, and if accepted, should practically retain such data for a period of time in subsequent to the publication.

Originality and plagiarism: Originality of the submitted works is the responsibility of the authors. Appropriate citations and quotations must be performed in the use of others’ statements and relevant works.

Multiple and concurrent publications: An author should not submit manuscript describing similar research in more than one primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is a form of unethical publishing behaviour and is intolerable.

Acknowledgement of sources: Authors are expected to give proper acknowledgement of the work of others within the manuscript. Publications that have been significant in determining the emergent nature of the reported study needs to be appropriately cited.

Authorship of the paper: Authorship is defined through the substantial contribution to the conception, design, interpretation and implementation of the work. Co-authors can refer to the individuals who provide substantial contribution or responsible towards the accountability of the work. Other stakeholders provide contributions in the support of study, mentorship, data collection and coordinator of study can be listed as contributors in the acknowledgment.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors are expected to provide disclosure on financial contribution and other potential sources of substantive conflict of interest that may influence the result and interpretation of their submitted manuscript. All relevant stakeholders that provide financial support for the study of which the manuscript is based on should be clearly annotated.

Fundamental errors in published works: Should there be any discovery of error or inaccuracy in the published work by the author, notification can be provided to the journal editor or publisher so when possible, further action in retracting or correcting the paper can be performed.