Publication Ethics

Arsitekno is a peer-reviewed research journal, therefore, it is crucial to state the publication ethics of every related parties.

1. Provide all relevant materials for readers and authors.
2. Continuously improved the publication materials.
3. Provide and guarantee the quality of the publication contents.
4. Assure the freedom of thinking and its objectivity.
5. Assure the authors’ academic track records.
6. Responsible for publication formatting, meanwhile the content of a manuscript is the responsible of authors.
7. Actively discuss for opinions and suggestions to improve the quality of the publication with authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial boards.
8. Encourage for re-evaluation if a fraud is discovered.
9. Support the initiative to reduce mistakes in a research through ethical clearance statement from the authors.
10. Support the initiatives to educate and embrace for publication ethics.
11. Evaluate the journal policies to improve responsibilities and minimize mistakes from the involved parties in the publication.
12. Open-minded for a new insight, either, it is pro-contra from private opinions.
13. Always objectively consider for suggestions and opinions for the journal improvement.
14. Encourage author(s) to produce a high quality work(s) for publication.

1. Receive the assignment from the editor to review a manuscript and inform the editor for the result, whether a manuscript is suitable or unsuitable for publication.
2. Never review a self-involvement manuscript, directly or indirectly.
3. Assure the anonymity of a review result and never publicly exposed of the recommendation result.
4. Encourage authors to improve their work.
5. Re-review a revised manuscript suitable for publication.
6. Perform the review processes in a given time frame to conform with a good research publication.

1. Ensure everyone involved as authors are eligible as one.
2. Responsible for their manuscript contents.
3. Acknowledge the funding, direct or indirect and every relevant parties performing the research that is not relevant as an author.
4. Clearly states the limitations of their works from within a publication.
5. Seriously and professionally take consideration for any reviewer comments in a given timeframe for any revision.
6. Clearly notify the editor, in a writing format, if a manuscript will be withdrawn before a review process by a reviewer is taking place.
7. Make an originality statement of their work containing information that their manuscript has not been considered, submitted, reviewed, and waiting for a decision for publication elsewhere.