Ethics and Publication Errors

Ethics and Publication Errors

Altruistic: Journal of Counseling and Educational Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement describes the ethical conduct of all parties involved in publishing articles in this journal and allegations of research misconduct, including authors, editor-in-chief, Editorial Board, peer-reviewers, and the publisher (Program in Guidance and Counseling Studies, Universitas Negeri Medan). This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Journal Publication Ethics Guidelines

Publication of an article in Biblio Based Review: Journal of Counseling and Education Studies is essential in developing a coherent and respected knowledge network. It directly reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles help and embody the scientific method. Therefore, it is necessary to agree on the standards of ethical behavior expected of all parties involved in publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.

The Guidance and Counseling Study Program as the publisher of Altruistik: Journal of Counseling and Educational Psychology, takes the task of maintaining all stages of publishing very seriously, and we are aware of our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Alleged Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means falsification, fabrication, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors or reporting research results. When authors are found to be involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, the Editors have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of alleged misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to help them resolve complaints and deal with violations fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegations by the Editors. Submitted manuscripts found to contain such errors will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to have such misconduct, a retraction may be issued and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individual alleging misconduct has a relevant conflict of interest.

Suppose scientific misconduct or other substantial research misconduct is a possibility. In that case, the allegation is shared with the corresponding author, who is asked to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. Once the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases where no infringement is likely, clarification, further analysis, or both are published as a letter to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article is sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as correction, retraction with replacement, and retraction, the journal Journal of Islamic Guidance and Counseling will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record. 

Publication decision

The editor of Altruistic: The Journal of Counseling and Educational Psychology is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validity of the work and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by legal requirements that would apply regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. 

Complaints and Appeals

Altruistic: The Journal of Counseling and Educational Psychology will have clear procedures for handling complaints against the journal, the Editorial Staff, the Editorial Board, or the Publisher. Complaints will be clarified to the honorable person regarding the complaint case. The scope of the complaint includes anything related to the business process of the journal, i.e., editorial strategy, manipulation of found citations, unfair editors/reviewers, manipulation of peer review, etc. Complaint cases will be processed by COPE guidelines. 

Fair play

An editor at all times evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy. 


Editors and any editorial staff should not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's research without the written consent of the authors.


Reviewer Duties

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with authors, can also assist authors in improving papers.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that immediate review is not possible should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Objectivity Standard
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that the authors have not cited. Appropriate citations should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported. Reviewers should also bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they are personally aware.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with any author, company, or institution associated with the paper.


Author Duties

Reporting standards
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately represented in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Deceptive or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Data Access and Retention
Authors are requested to provide raw data with papers for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, where possible, and should, in any event, be ready to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for the reproducibility of the data.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written wholly original work, and where authors have used the work and words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
An author should not generally publish a manuscript describing the same research in more than one major journal or publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship and Article Contributions
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, conduct, or interpretation of the reported study. All persons who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Authors of correspondence should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on this page.

Fundamental errors in published work
When an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, the author should immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


Ethical Oversight

Suppose the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use. In that case, the author must identify these in the manuscript to comply with the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. Authors should provide legal and ethical clearance from legal associations or organizations if required.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should justify this as to whether or not such data or information will be safely concealed.