Publication Ethics

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP), published by Politeknik Pembangunan Pertanian Yogyakarta-Magelang, is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, accountability, and quality of scholarly publishing. The journal publishes research in agricultural sciences, sustainable agriculture, agribusiness, food technology, and related disciplines. Its publication ethics policy establishes responsibilities for authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, and the publisher throughout the editorial and publication process.

This statement is developed in accordance with the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It adopts COPE's ten core practices covering allegations of misconduct, authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, competing interests, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer review, and post-publication corrections. These principles provide the framework for responsible editorial decision-making and the management of publication ethics concerns.

1. Ethical Principles and Editorial Independence

JIIP evaluates manuscripts according to their scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, and contribution to agricultural knowledge. Editorial decisions must remain independent of authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, political background, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit. Editors must exercise impartial judgment and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team maintain responsibility for editorial decisions. The publisher supports editorial independence and must not influence manuscript acceptance or rejection for commercial, institutional, financial, or personal reasons. Decisions concerning scientific content must follow transparent editorial procedures and recognized standards of publication ethics.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

2.1. Originality and Research Integrity

Authors must submit original scholarly work that accurately represents their research processes, findings, analyses, and conclusions. Authors must not fabricate data, falsify research findings, manipulate experimental results, misrepresent statistical analyses, or present another person's intellectual contributions as their own. All borrowed ideas, methods, data, and written materials must receive appropriate acknowledgment through accurate citations.

2.2. Multiple Submission and Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. They must disclose closely related manuscripts, previous dissemination, and overlapping publications that may influence editorial assessment. Redundant publication, unjustified duplication, and inappropriate fragmentation of substantially similar findings into multiple manuscripts are unacceptable. Legitimate secondary publication may be considered only when authors provide transparent disclosure and obtain the necessary editorial permissions.

2.3. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript. All listed authors must have contributed meaningfully, approved the final submitted version, and accepted responsibility for their respective contributions and the integrity of the work. Individuals who provide technical, administrative, financial, or other assistance without meeting the journal's authorship criteria should receive acknowledgment rather than authorship. Gift authorship, guest authorship, and ghost authorship are prohibited.

The corresponding author must ensure that all eligible contributors are appropriately credited and that all co-authors consent to manuscript submission. Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must include a reasonable explanation and written agreement from the individuals concerned. When authorship disputes arise, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or assistance from the relevant institutions.

2.4. Accuracy of Data and Reproducibility

Authors must describe their research design, sampling procedures, experimental conditions, instruments, analytical methods, and statistical procedures with sufficient precision to permit critical evaluation and reasonable reproducibility. Authors should retain original research records and provide supporting information when editors request it for legitimate research integrity assessments, subject to ethical, legal, confidentiality, and data protection requirements.

2.5. Disclosure of Funding and Competing Interests

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably influence the design, execution, interpretation, or reporting of their research. Such interests may include research grants, institutional relationships, employment, consultancy arrangements, commercial sponsorship, patent interests, and personal or professional relationships. Authors must identify funding sources and explain the funders' roles, where applicable.

2.6. Correction of Errors

Authors who discover significant errors, methodological problems, or unreliable findings in submitted or published manuscripts must promptly notify the editorial office and cooperate in determining an appropriate response. Depending on the nature and consequences of the problem, the response may involve clarification, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

3. Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Board Members

3.1. Fair and Evidence-Based Editorial Decisions

Editors must assess manuscripts fairly and make publication decisions based on scientific quality, research validity, originality, peer review findings, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editors must not allow personal preferences, institutional interests, financial considerations, or inappropriate external pressure to determine editorial outcomes. Editors should provide reasonable explanations for their decisions and establish mechanisms for reviewing legitimate appeals.

3.2. Confidentiality

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, unpublished research findings, reviewer identities where applicable, and communications arising during peer review. Manuscript information may be shared only with individuals legitimately involved in editorial evaluation, authorized investigations, or publishing operations. Editors must not use unpublished information for personal research or commercial advantage without the authors' permission.

3.3. Management of Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors and editorial board members must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts involving significant personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest. An independent editor should manage such submissions to preserve fairness and credibility.

3.4. Response to Publication Misconduct

Editors must investigate credible concerns about publication misconduct, regardless of whether the manuscript is under review or already published. When allegations involve potential fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, or manipulated peer review, editors must examine the available evidence, provide appropriate opportunities for response, and follow a fair and documented process. When necessary, editors may contact research institutions or other competent authorities.

4. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

4.1. Confidentiality and Professional Conduct

Peer reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential scholarly documents. They must not distribute submitted materials, disclose unpublished findings, or use privileged information for personal or professional benefit. Reviewers must obtain editorial permission before involving additional individuals in manuscript evaluation and must respect the confidentiality requirements of the review process.

4.2. Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessments. Reviews should evaluate research questions, originality, methodology, data interpretation, conclusions, scientific relevance, and clarity of presentation. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, hostile language, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate. Reviewers should substantiate their recommendations with clear academic reasoning.

4.3. Expertise, Timeliness, and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they possess appropriate expertise and can complete the evaluation within a reasonable period. They must promptly inform editors about relevant conflicts of interest or circumstances that could impair impartial judgment. Reviewers should decline assignments when conflicts cannot be appropriately managed.

4.4. Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should notify editors confidentially when they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, inappropriate citation practices, missing ethical approvals, or other substantial concerns. Reviewers must communicate suspicions responsibly and distinguish factual observations from unverified allegations.

5. Peer Review Process

JIIP implements a blind peer review process in which manuscripts undergo editorial screening and scientific evaluation by qualified reviewers. In accordance with the journal's existing policy, submissions are reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, while the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor retains responsibility for determining acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The peer review process must be transparent, impartial, scientifically rigorous, and appropriately documented. Editors should select competent reviewers, manage competing interests, safeguard confidentiality, and prevent manipulation of reviewer identities or reports. Authors must respond appropriately to reviewer comments and explain substantive revisions. The journal does not guarantee acceptance following a revision request.

6. Research Ethics and Ethical Oversight

6.1. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants, including farmers, agricultural workers, consumers, rural communities, and other research subjects, must respect ethical principles concerning voluntary participation, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and minimization of potential harm. Authors must obtain ethical approval when required by applicable law, institutional regulations, and the nature of the research. Authors must describe relevant ethical safeguards in their manuscripts.

6.2. Research Involving Animals

Studies involving animals must comply with applicable animal welfare laws, institutional ethical requirements, and accepted standards for humane research. Authors must describe animal care arrangements, relevant approvals, and measures taken to minimize unnecessary suffering when these matters apply to their research.

6.3. Agricultural, Environmental, and Biosafety Considerations

Research involving agricultural field trials, biological materials, microorganisms, pesticides, genetic resources, or environmental interventions must comply with applicable laws, permits, and institutional biosafety requirements. Authors should disclose relevant permissions and explain procedures used to manage environmental, occupational, biological, and community risks. These discipline-specific requirements form part of JIIP's implementation of ethical oversight and responsible research reporting.

7. Plagiarism and Intellectual Property

JIIP does not tolerate plagiarism, including the unattributed appropriation of another person's text, ideas, data, figures, tables, research methods, or other intellectual contributions. Authors must acknowledge sources accurately and obtain permission when required to reproduce copyrighted material. Submissions may undergo similarity screening and editorial examination to identify potential textual overlap or publication ethics concerns.

A similarity report does not, by itself, establish plagiarism or misconduct. Editors must assess the nature, extent, context, attribution, and scholarly significance of identified overlap before making a decision. When plagiarism or serious redundant publication is established, the journal may reject the manuscript, require corrective action, or retract an affected published article, depending on the circumstances.

8. Data Availability, Transparency, and Reproducibility

JIIP encourages authors to provide sufficient information to support verification and reproducibility, including relevant datasets, analytical procedures, research instruments, protocols, and supplementary materials when appropriate. Authors should identify legitimate restrictions on data sharing, including participant confidentiality, intellectual property rights, institutional obligations, and applicable data protection requirements.

Authors must report research methods and results accurately and distinguish observed findings from interpretations or assumptions. When relevant to the study design, authors should disclose missing data, sampling limitations, statistical assumptions, deviations from research protocols, and other factors that materially affect interpretation. These reporting expectations support transparent assessment of scientific reliability.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency

All participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and relevant publishing personnel, must disclose competing interests that could influence their professional responsibilities. Conflicts may be financial, personal, academic, institutional, or commercial. The existence of a competing interest does not automatically establish misconduct; transparent disclosure and appropriate management are necessary to protect editorial independence.

The journal may require authors to provide a funding statement and a declaration of competing interests. Editors must evaluate disclosures and determine whether additional transparency, independent editorial handling, reviewer replacement, or other safeguards are necessary. Material undisclosed conflicts discovered after publication may require investigation and corrective action.

10. Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

10.1. Reporting Ethical Concerns

JIIP accepts good-faith reports of suspected publication misconduct from authors, reviewers, readers, institutional representatives, and other relevant parties. Allegations may concern fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship irregularities, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, or manipulation of the peer review process. Reports should identify the article or manuscript concerned and provide sufficient information to permit preliminary assessment.

10.2. Preliminary Assessment and Investigation

The editorial team will assess the credibility and relevance of allegations and determine an appropriate course of action. Depending on the circumstances, editors may examine manuscript records, request explanations and supporting documents, seek independent expert advice, or contact the authors' institutions. Investigations must be proportionate, confidential where appropriate, impartial, and guided by available evidence rather than unsupported accusations.

10.3. Editorial Actions and Institutional Cooperation

Where ethical concerns are substantiated, JIIP may request explanations or corrections, reject a manuscript, suspend editorial consideration, publish a correction or expression of concern, or retract an article when warranted. The journal may cooperate with relevant research institutions because institutional bodies generally have broader authority to investigate research conduct. Editorial action should remain proportionate to the evidence and the effect on the published scholarly record.

11. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

11.1. Corrections

JIIP may publish a correction when an article contains errors that require amendment but do not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. Corrections should identify the affected publication, describe the relevant changes, and remain accessible to readers. The purpose of a correction is to maintain an accurate and reliable scholarly record.

11.2. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions arise about the reliability or ethical integrity of a published article but available evidence is insufficient for a definitive conclusion, or when an investigation remains unresolved. Such notices should explain the nature of the concern and be updated when additional verified information becomes available.

11.3. Retractions

JIIP may retract an article when reliable evidence demonstrates that its findings are seriously unreliable, the work involves plagiarism or unjustified redundant publication, the research was unethical, the publication relied on manipulated peer review, or other substantial circumstances undermine the article's integrity. A retraction does not necessarily imply that every author knowingly engaged in misconduct. Retraction decisions must consider the evidence and the need to protect the scholarly record.

Retraction notices must clearly identify the affected article, state the reasons for retraction, identify the party responsible for the retraction, and remain freely accessible. Notices should be linked to the original publication and use objective, factual language. Retracted articles should remain identifiable as part of the scholarly record unless exceptional legal or ethical circumstances justify removing particular content.

12. Complaints and Appeals

JIIP recognizes the right of authors and other relevant parties to submit reasoned complaints concerning editorial procedures, reviewer conduct, publication ethics decisions, or potential conflicts of interest. Complaints must be assessed fairly and without retaliation. The editorial office should document complaints, review the supporting information, and determine whether additional investigation or independent evaluation is appropriate.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a clear explanation supported by relevant academic or procedural evidence. An appeal should identify substantive errors in evaluation, procedural irregularities, or other legitimate grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with a reviewer or rejection decision alone does not establish grounds for reversal. Editors should arrange an impartial review of justified appeals and communicate the resulting decision.

13. Copyright, Licensing, and Open Access

JIIP respects authors' intellectual property rights and requires transparent disclosure of copyright and licensing arrangements. The journal applies the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), as stated on its official website. Authors and users must comply with the applicable licensing conditions and acknowledge original sources when reproducing or adapting published materials. COPE recommends that journals clearly communicate their intellectual property and licensing policies.

Authors and readers must receive accurate information about publication charges, licensing conditions, copyright ownership, and access arrangements before publication. Financial and licensing policies should remain publicly accessible and should not interfere with the independence of editorial decision-making.

14. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Publishing

JIIP requires authors to remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, transparency, and integrity of submitted manuscripts, including content prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools. AI-assisted activities must not result in fabricated references, misleading research data, inappropriate attribution, or the disclosure of confidential or protected information. Authors must disclose substantive AI assistance in accordance with the journal's author guidelines and provide sufficient information for editors to evaluate its role. These requirements are journal-specific applications of COPE's principles on authorship, transparency, confidentiality, and research integrity.

Generative AI tools must not be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility for research integrity or fulfill human authorship obligations. Human authors remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted material, checking references, reviewing factual accuracy, and complying with intellectual property and research ethics requirements. Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research material to unauthorized AI systems.

15. Journal Management and Publisher Responsibilities

The publisher of JIIP, Politeknik Pembangunan Pertanian Yogyakarta-Magelang, supports responsible scholarly publishing through appropriate editorial infrastructure, transparent publication policies, reliable manuscript management, and mechanisms for addressing ethical concerns. Journal management must maintain clearly defined editorial responsibilities, support the professional development of editors and reviewers, and protect the journal's editorial independence.

The journal should periodically evaluate its editorial procedures, author instructions, peer review standards, research integrity safeguards, and ethical complaint mechanisms. Editorial policies must remain transparent and should be revised when necessary to reflect changes in publication practices, recognized ethical guidance, and relevant legal obligations.

16. Post-Publication Discussion and Scholarly Accountability

JIIP supports responsible post-publication discussion, including evidence-based criticism, requests for clarification, and reports of errors or ethical concerns. The editorial team should evaluate substantive comments and determine whether an author response, correction, investigation, expression of concern, or retraction is necessary. Scholarly disagreement must be distinguished from evidence of misconduct.

17. Reporting Publication Ethics Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other parties may communicate publication ethics concerns to the JIIP editorial office. Reports should include the relevant manuscript or article title, a description of the concern, and supporting documentation where available. The journal will evaluate submissions in accordance with its editorial procedures and the applicable principles of fairness, confidentiality, and research integrity.

Editorial Contact:
Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP)
Politeknik Pembangunan Pertanian Yogyakarta-Magelang
Jl. Kusumanegara No. 2, Tahunan, Umbulharjo, Yogyakarta 55167, Indonesia.
Email: jiipyoma@polbangtanyoma.ac.id
Journal Website: https://jiip.polbangtanyoma.ac.id/index.php/jiip/index

18. Compliance with Publication Ethics Standards

JIIP is committed to applying the principles of responsible scholarly publishing and continually improving its editorial policies. This publication ethics statement is informed by COPE guidance and serves as a framework for ethical decision-making throughout manuscript submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication evaluation. A commitment to COPE principles does not, by itself, constitute a claim of formal COPE membership or endorsement.