Ethics Statement

This statement explains the ethical behaviour of the parties involved in publishing articles in this journal. It is related to research errors, authors, editor in chief, editorial board, peer-reviewers, and publishers (Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik University-accounting study program). This statement is based on COPE's Guidelines for Best Practice for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline For Journal Publication

Peers reviewed the publishing of articles on JCAA. It is an essential concept in the development of connected and respected knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the article and the institution. The peer-reviewed article guarantees and embodies the scientific method. Thus, it is important to agree on the ethical behaviour standards used for the parties involved in publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.

The accounting department of the University of  Muhammadiyah Gresik is the publisher of the Journal of Culture Accounting and Auditing, which carries out guardianship duties for all publishing stages with great care, and we are aware of ethical and other responsibilities. We ensure that advertising, reprints, or revenue, and others do not depend on editorial decisions. Publishers and the Editorial Board will communicate with journals or other publishers as useful and necessary.

ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

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

 If there are cases of suspected violations, the Editor and the Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to resolve protests and address them fairly. This will include an investigation into the allegations by the Editors. Submissions that are found to contain such errors will be rejected. Published papers contain such errors. Repeal can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The initial step involves the validity of the allegations and assessing whether the allegations are consistent with the research error definition. The initial step involves determining whether the individual accused of committing an offence has a conflict of interest.

Suppose a scientific error or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility. In that case, the allegations are shared with the respective authors, who are asked to provide detailed responses on behalf of all co-authors. Once responses have been received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) can be obtained. For cases where minor violations may occur, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published as a letter to the editor, and often including notice of corrections and corrections to the published article is sufficient.

The Institute conducts precise and thorough investigations into alleged scientific violations. Authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific writing. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific errors and taking the necessary actions based on evaluating these issues, such as corrections, revocation with replacement, and repeal, JCAA will continue to fulfil its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of scientific writing.

PUBLICATION DECISION

The Journal of Culture Accounting and Auditing editor is responsible for deciding which articles should be published in the journal. Job validation and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive such decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board's policies and limited by the legal requirements that will apply regarding allegations, copyright infringement, and complaints. The editor may confer with the editor or other discussant in making this decision.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

JCAA  has clear procedures for handling complaints against journals, editors, editorial boards or publishers. The complaint is clarified to someone who is respected in connection with the complaint case. Complaints include everything related to the journal process, namely the editorial process, citation errors found, unfair editors/reviewers, peer-review errors, etc. Grievance cases will be processed following COPE guidelines. Complaint cases must be sent via email to jcaa@umg.ac.id.

FAIR PLAY

Editors always evaluate manuscripts related to scientific papers, regardless of skin colour, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or the author's political philosophy.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and appropriate publishers.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Unpublished manuscripts disclosed in the submitted manuscripts may not be used in the editor's research without the authors' written consent.

THE REVIEWER'S DUTY

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions, and through editorial communication, authors can also assist authors in refining papers.

2. Speed

Selected referees who feel ineligible to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that an immediate review is not possible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

3. Confidentiality

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

4. Standard of Objectivity

Reviews must be carried out objectively. The author's personal criticism is inappropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5. Source recognition

The reviewer must identify relevant published works that the author has not cited. Each previously reported statement of observation, derivation, or argument must be accompanied by a relevant quote. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention to any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers they are personally aware.

6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest that results from the competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions with which the paper is associated.

AUTHOR'S DUTY

1. Reporting standards

The author of the original research report must present an accurate report of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be presented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Statements that are deceptive or intentionally inaccurate are unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

2. Data Access, Retention and Reproducibility

Authors are required to provide raw data concerning papers for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and in any case, be ready to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for the reproducibility of the data.

3. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written completely original work, and if the author has used someone else's work and words, this has been appropriately quoted or cited.

4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should generally not publish manuscripts describing substantially the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable publishing behaviour.

5. Source recognition

Proper recognition of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work being reported.

6. Authorization and Article Contribution

Writing should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported study. Everyone who has made a significant contribution must be registered as a co-author. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be recognized or registered as contributors. Associated authors must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to submit it for publication.

7. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

All authors must disclose in their text any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that exist

POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSIONS AND CORRECTIONS  

JCAA accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by the reader. If the reader gives discussions and corrections toward a published article, the reader can contact by email to Editor in Chief by explaining the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by Editor in Chief), the discussions and correction will be published in the next issue as a Letter to Editor. Respected Authors can reply/answer the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the Editor in Chief. Therefore, Editors may publish the answer as Reply to Letter to Editor.