Publication Ethics

The statement of the scientific publication code of ethics is a statement of the code of ethics for all parties involved in the scientific journal publication process, including: Managers, Editors, Bestari Partners, and Authors/Authors. This statement of the scientific publication code of ethics refers to the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, which essentially upholds three ethical values in publication, namely:
1. Neutrality, namely being free from conflicts of interest in the management of publications;
2. Justice, namely granting authorship rights to those entitled to be authors/writers; And
3. Honesty, namely free from Duplication, Fabrication, Falsification, and Plagiarism (DF2P) in publications.
This guide to the scientific publication code of ethics is translated and adopted based on Elsevier's publication ethics policy which includes:

1. Determine the name of the journal, scientific scope, periodicity, and accreditation if necessary.
2. Determine the membership of the editor.
3. Define the relationship between publishers, editors, bestari partners, and other parties.
4. Respect confidential matters, both for contributing researchers, authors/writers, editors, and bestari partners.
5. Implement norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyrights.
6. Review journal policies and submit them to authors/writers, editors, bestari partners, and readers.
7. Create code of conduct guides for editors and bestari partners.
8. Publish journals regularly.
9. Guarantee the availability of funding sources for the continuation of journal publication.
10. Build a network of cooperation and marketing.
11. Improve the quality of journals.
12. Prepare permits and other legal aspects.
13. The decision of the Editor in Chief is final based on the submitted articles.

1. Publication Decision. The editor of Nusantara Hasana Journal (NHJ) is responsible for publishing and deciding which articles will be published from the accepted articles. This decision is based on the validation of the article and the contribution of the article to researchers and readers. In carrying out their duties, the Editor is guided by the policies of the editorial board and subject to legal provisions that need to be enforced such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor can discuss with other reviewers or editors in making the decision.
2. Objective Assessment. The editor evaluates a manuscript based on its intellectual content without any discrimination in religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation, and others.
3. Editors and editorial staff may not disclose all information about manuscripts that have been received to anyone, other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, and the editorial board.
4. Conflict of Interest. Article material sent to Nusantara Hasana Journal (NHJ) and not yet published may not be used for the editor's personal research without including written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor must refuse to review the manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution related to the manuscript.
5. Cooperation in Investigations. The editor must take responsive steps if there are complaints regarding ethics in the manuscripts that have been received or in the articles that have been published. The editor can contact the scriptwriter and give consideration to the complaint. The editor can also make further communications to related institutions or research institutes. When complaints have been resolved, matters such as publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other notes, need to be considered.


1. Contribution to Editor's Decision. Blind peer review by the reviewer assists the editor in making decisions and can assist the author in improving his writing through editorial communication between the reviewer and the author. Peer review is an important component in formal scholarly communication and scientific approaches.
2. Punctuality. If the assigned reviewer feels that he does not have the qualifications to review a manuscript or knows that it is impossible to review it in a timely manner, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.
3. Every manuscript that has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
4. The review must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer must express their views clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.
5. Completeness and Authenticity of References. Reviewers must identify published works that have not been cited by the authors. A previously published statement of observation or argument must be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer must notify the editor of substantial similarities or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and other published writings, to the best of the reviewer's knowledge.
6. Conflict of Interest. Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's personal research without including written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer must refuse to review the manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution related to the work.


1. Writing Standards. The author must present an accurate paper/article on the research conducted and present an objective discussion on the significance of the research. Research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article must be sufficiently detailed with sufficient references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or inaccurate presentation of papers is unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
2. Access to Research Data. Authors may be required to provide raw data for articles to be reviewed and must be able to provide public access to such data whenever possible, and must be able to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical behavior in the publication of scientific work and is unacceptable. The author must ensure that all the work presented is original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of other people, the author must provide accurate quotations. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as acknowledging someone else's writing as your own, copying or rewriting a substantial part of another person's work without citing the source, and claiming the results of research done by someone else. Self-plagiarism or auto plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Auto plagiarism is quoting results or sentences from one's own published work without mentioning the source.
4. Terms of Writing. Authors may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript in more than one journal is unethical behavior in scientific publication and is unacceptable.
5. Inclusion of Reference Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be done. Authors must mention influential publications in the preparation of their work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, may not be used or reported without written permission from the source of the information.
6. Authorship. The author is a person who has made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the writing in the article. All parties who have made significant contributions are listed as co-authors. Corresponding authors must ensure that all co-authors have been included in the manuscript, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work and have approved the manuscript's submission for publication.
7. Hazards and Human Subjects. If the manuscript involves procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify those items clearly in the manuscript. If the manuscript involves human subjects, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures are carried out in accordance with the relevant statutory regulations and institutions and the committee within the institution has approved them. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that consent has been obtained for experiments with human subjects. The right to privacy of human subjects must always be observed. Consent, permission, and acknowledgment must be obtained if the author wishes to include case details or other personal information in the manuscript. Written consent must be kept by the author and a copy of the agreement or proof that such consent has been obtained must be provided to the journal upon request.
8. Errors in Published Posts. When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, the author is responsible for immediately notifying the journal editor of this matter, as well as working with the editor to withdraw or correct the writing. If the editor obtains information from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, the author is responsible for immediately withdrawing or making corrections to the writing or providing evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original writing.

Website Administrator is the person responsible for managing the journal website. Specifically, the scope of duties of the Website Administrator is as follows:
1. Setting up a journal website;
2. Configure system options and manage user accounts;
3. Registration for editors, reviewers, and writers;
4. Manage journal features;
5. View report statistics; And
6. Uploading/publishing papers that have accepted status.