Publication Ethics

EKSISTENSI is a blind-review journal that is published periodically 2 (two) times in one year (February and August). The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed EKSISTENSI is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method.

The publication of articles in blind-review journals is an essential part of the development of science. Paper is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of writers and institutions that shelter it. Articles from blind-review results support and realise a scientific approach. Therefore, a standard of ethical behaviour needed for all parties involved in publications: journal editors, reviewers, and writers.

This guide translated and adopted based on the publication ethics policy of Elsevier.



1. Publication Decision

Editor of the EKSISTENSI is responsible for deciding which articles will be published from the reports received. This decision based on the validation of the story and the contribution of the material to researchers and readers. In carrying out its duties, the Editor guided by the policies of the editorial board and is subject to legal provisions that need to be enforced such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with editors or other reviewers in making these decisions.

2. Objective Assessment

The editor evaluates a text based on his intellectual content without discrimination in religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation and others.

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff may not disclose all information about the manuscript that has been received to anyone, other than the author, reviewer, prospective reviewer, and editorial board.

4. Conflict of Interest

Article material sent to EKSISTENSI and not yet published should not be used for the editor's research without writing the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor must refuse to review the manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative or other relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the text.

5. Collaboration in Investigation

The editor must take active steps if there are ethics-related complaints on the text that has been received or the article that has been published. The editor can contact the scriptwriter and consider the charge. Editors can also communicate further to relevant research institutions or institutions. When claims have been resolved, matters such as publication of corrections, withdrawals, statements of concern, or other records, need to be considered.



1. Contributions to Editor's Decisions

Blind peer review by reviewers helps editors in making decisions and can help authors improve their writing through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an essential component in formal scientific communication (official scholarly communication) and a scientific approach.

2. Timeliness

If reviewers who are assigned feel they do not have the qualifications to review text or know that it is not possible to conduct a timely review, the designated reviewer must immediately notify the editor.

3. Confidentiality

Each text that has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The version must not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorised by the editor.

4. Objective

The review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views accompanied by supporting arguments.

5. Reference completeness and authenticity

Reviewers must identify the publication's work that has not been quoted by the author. A statement about observations or arguments that have been previously published must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers must notify the editor of the substantial or overlapping similarities between the manuscripts being reviewed with other published articles, by the reviewer's knowledge.

6. Conflict of Interest

Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's research without including written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must refuse to review the manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative or other relationship with the author, company or institution that is related to the work.



1. Standard of Writing

The author must present actual papers/articles on the research conducted and offer an objective discussion of the significance of the study. Research data must be performed accurately in the section. A report must be sufficiently detailed with sufficient references to allow other people to replicate the work. Fraud or the presentation of inaccurate papers is unethical and unacceptable.

2. Access to Research Data

Authors can be asked to provide raw data on the writing to be reviewed and must be able to provide public access to the information if possible, and must be able to store the data within a reasonable period after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all forms is unethical in the publication of scientific works and is not acceptable. The author must ensure that all the work presented is original work, and if the author has used the work and words of other people, then the author must show the quote appropriately. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as recognising other people's writing into their writing, copying or rewriting a substantial part of someone else's work without mentioning the source, and claiming the results of research conducted by others. Self-Plagiarism or auto plagiarism is a form of piracy. Oto plagiarism is quoting the results or sentences from work itself that have been published without mentioning the source.

4. Conditions for Submitting Posts

The author may not publish the same manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper in more than one journal is unethical behaviour in the publication of scientific work and is not acceptable.

5. The inclusion of Reference Sources

Correct recognition of the work of others must always be done. The author must mention the influential publications in the preparation of his work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, may not be used or reported without written permission from the source of information.

6. Authorship Posts

An author is a person who has made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writing in the article. All parties that have made significant contributions are included as co-authors. The correspondence writer must ensure that all co-authors have been involved in the text, and all co-authors have read and agreed to the final version of the work and have approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

7. Errors in Published Posts

When the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author is responsible for notifying the journal editor immediately, as well as cooperating with the editor to retract or correct the writing. If the editor obtains information from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, the author is responsible for immediately withdrawing or correcting the writing or providing evidence to the editor regarding the accuracy of the original paper.