Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

KHELIE: Khatulistiwa English Language and Linguistics is a campus-based, open-access, peer-reviewed journal published by English Language Teaching Study Program, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, State Islamic Institute of Pontianak that upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. The publication of an article in Kheli Journal echoes the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Each article is peer reviewed. In its role as publisher, the English Language Teaching Study Program is solely responsible for supervising all stages of publication and recognizes its ethical and professional responsibilities. The publisher is strongly committed to guarantee that advertising, reprinting, and other commercial expenses have no impact or influence on editorial decisions.  

Khelie Journal is referring to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Details of guideline and international standards could be found on COPE website. This section highlights the ethical conduct expected by all parties taking part in the process of publishing any article in this journal (i.e., authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, reviewers, and publisher).

Publication decisions

The editors of Khelie Journal decide which articles submitted to the journal should be published based on their authentication as original contributions and their significance to the wider research community with the recommendation from the selected reviewers. The editors and reviewers are guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and controlled by such legal requirements as in force regarding libel, copyright violation, and plagiarism. 

Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests

A competing interest often called a conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in Khelie Journal when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others. We believe that to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have and that if we publish the article, readers should know about them too. To ensure that the articles published in the journal are free from inappropriate external influence, authors must declare any potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity or integrity of the article. These conflicts may be financial, non-financial, professional, or personal in nature. Khelie Journal also assigns recognized reviewers from different affiliation/country with the author to ensure maximum double-blind review process as well as to avoid conflicts of interest / competing interests.

Journal's policy on ethical oversight 

The journal is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research publication. The journal attaches particular importance to ethical values such as honesty, excellence in research practice, transparency, open communication, and respect. It follows the guidelines the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) set. The authors agree to follow its ethical guidelines by submitting a manuscript to the journal.

Duties of Authors

• Reporting Standard: 
  Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
• Data Access and Retention: 
  Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
• Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
• Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
  An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Acknowledgement of Sources: 
  Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
• Authorship of the Paper: 
  Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
  All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Nevertheless, Author from the
• Fundamental errors in published works: 
  When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
  If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. When reporting a study that involved the use of animals or human participants, the authors should include a statement that confirms that the study was approved (or granted exemption) by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the name of the ethics committee) and certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Duties of Editors

• Fair Play: 
  An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Confidentiality: 
  The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
  Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
• Publication Decisions: 
  The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
• Review of Manuscripts: 
  Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

• Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
  Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
• Promptness: 
  Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
• Standards of Objectivity: 
  Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Confidentiality: 
  Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 
  Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Acknowledgment of Sources: 
  Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Duties of the Publisher

• Handling of unethical publishing behavior
  In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.  The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
• Access to journal content
  The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. 

Handling Post-Publication Issue:

To maintain the integrity of scientific research, Khelie Journal carries out investigations regarding the concerns raised by authors and/or readers. However, authors are always allowed to respond to all complaints/ comments. We may require reviewers to go over the original data and consult with experts involved in order to solve and conclude the investigation. The following actions may be taken depending on Post-publication discussions and corrections severity of the issue:

An Editor's Note and/or Editorial Expression of Concern may be published; a second notification might also be published once the investigation is complete. The article may be retracted If the outcome of the investigation highlights some serious issues.

Retraction

A paper published in Khelie Journal will be retracted in the following conditions are fulfilled:

• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
• The study has previously been published elsewhere, without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• It reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

Allegation of Research Misconducts

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities pertaining to articles that have been published in other scientific journals, the 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 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 be the product of such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction will be published and linked to the original article.

Step 1:

The first step of this process involves determining the validity of the allegation. An assessment is made whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the alleged individuals have relevant conflicts of interest. 

Step 2:

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is requested to provide a detailed response on behalf of the co-authors.

Step 3:

After the author’s response is received and evaluated, an additional review is done, possibly with the involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers).

Step 4:

In cases where it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications and/or additional analyses are published as letters to the editor. However, a correction notice may suffice. 

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and academic institutions have the 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, the journal will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

How will Khelie journal handle complaints and appeals?

Khelie Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about a journal's editorial management of the peer review process. If you wish to appeal a journal editor's decision, please submit an appeal letter to the journal's online editorial office. Please address this to the Editor and explain the basis for an appeal. You should:

Detail why you disagree with the decision. Please provide specific responses to any of the Editor's and/or reviewers' comments that contributed to the rejection decision.

• Provide any new information or data you would like the journal to consider.
• Provide evidence if you believe a reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of your manuscript.
• Include evidence if a reviewer may have a conflict of interest.

 This elaboration is based on COPE's principle of Complaints and appeals