Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our journals, including the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers, and the publisher, namely Universitas Terbuka.

Publication and Authorship

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two National or International Reviewers who are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. Review processes are blind peer review.
3. The review considers relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The acceptance of the paper is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards:

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

2. Originality and Plagiarism:

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications:

Authors should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

5. Authorship of the Paper:

The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

All authors should clearly 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.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works:

If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:

The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Authorship and Contributorship

1. Authorship Criteria

Authorship must be based on substantial contributions to the work. All of the following criteria must be met: making a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content; approving the final version to be published; and agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Authors who have not made substantive contributions must not be listed. Guest authorship and gift authorship are strictly prohibited.

2. Submitting Author

The submitting author is primarily responsible for submitting the manuscript through the journal's submission system and for communicating with the journal throughout the submission, peer review, and revision process, including the collection of conflict of interest declarations, provision of authorship details, and ethics committee approvals where applicable.

3. Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is accountable for completing all required steps following acceptance of the manuscript and for maintaining communication with the journal and readers after publication. All communications from HEXAGON will be addressed to the corresponding author.

4. Alteration to Authorship

Authorization from all authors is required for any change in authorship occurring after initial submission and before publication, including additions, deletions, changes in order, or modifications to contribution attribution. The Editor-in-Chief must be formally notified of any such changes.

5. Contributorship Statement

All submitted manuscripts must include a contributorship statement specifying each author's individual contributions in accordance with the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework. The statement must clearly identify the individual responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.

6. Acknowledgements

Authors may include an acknowledgements section recognizing individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet authorship criteria. Authors are advised to obtain permission from all acknowledged individuals prior to submission.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions:

Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

2. 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.

3. Fair Play:

The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

4. Confidentiality:

The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:

The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality:

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2. Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

3. Standards of Objectivity:

Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), they should notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

5. Promptness:

The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

All research articles submitted to HEXAGON are required to include a Data Availability Statement. All data reported in the manuscript must be authentic and verifiable, and authors must explain transparently if data cannot be shared due to confidentiality or ethical restrictions. Details regarding statement formats, approved repositories, and editorial verification procedures are governed by HEXAGON's Data Availability Policy.

Ethical Oversight

HEXAGON ensures that all published research meets internationally accepted ethical standards in accordance with COPE guidelines. Ethical oversight encompasses policies regarding consent to publication, research involving vulnerable populations, animals, or human subjects, handling of confidential data, and ethical business practices.

1. Research Involving Human Subjects

Research involving human subjects must have received approval from a duly constituted institutional ethics committee and must conform to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (revised 2013). Authors must confirm that all procedures complied with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that informed consent was obtained. The manuscript's Ethical Approval section must include at minimum the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board.

2. Research Involving Confidential Data

If the research involves confidential data or business and marketing practices, authors must clearly justify how such data will be appropriately secured and protected.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

HEXAGON respects and protects the intellectual property rights of all parties involved in the publishing process. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. The work is simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits others to share and adapt the work with appropriate acknowledgment. Authors may also enter into separate arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the published version. Use of third-party materials must be accompanied by official permission from the copyright holder.

Complaints and Appeals

HEXAGON has a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, Editorial Board, or publisher, covering matters including editorial decisions, citation manipulation, unfair editorial or reviewer practices, and peer review manipulation. Authors who consider an editorial decision to be unfair may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief with clear grounds for the appeal. All complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially, fairly, and within 30 working days in accordance with COPE guidelines. The journal is committed to not retaliating against any party who raises a complaint in good faith.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

HEXAGON is committed to maintaining the integrity of the academic record. Authors are obliged to report any errors discovered in their published work promptly to the Editor-in-Chief. Details regarding corrections, errata, retractions, withdrawals, and post-publication commentary are governed by HEXAGON's Retraction, Withdrawal, and Correction (RWC) Policy and Post-Publication Discussion Policy.