Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted at a maximum of 3 weeks time. Although rare, yet it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the PPTU. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts reviewers for review. It usually took up to 14 weeks.

Type of peer review

Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. The method is blind peer review.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original by stating the objectives and gap clearly
• Is methodologically research
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• Has results/findings which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly references previous relevant work
• Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.

Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. Editor’s decision is final.

The response of the reviewers will be the basis for the Editor to conclude

1. Revisions Required
2. Accept Submission
3. Decline Submission
4. Resubmit Elsewhere

An article was rejected for publication due to various considerations, including:

1. The article does not fit the scope
2. The article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / do not follow the author's guidelines 
3. The fundamental methodological errors
4. The author refuses to make suggestions for improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis.
5. There are indications of plagiarism of more than 25%

The publication of Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar involves conscientious, systematic and comprehensive processes by publishers and editors which require to be dealt with efficiently and competently. To maintain high ethical standards of publication of quality science the publisher strives to work closely at all times with journal editors, authors and peer-reviewers. The ethics statement for Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar is based on those by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org.

The essentials of Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar publishing ethics for all groups involved in the publishing process are as follows:

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar 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 help and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

LPPM-PMP as the publisher of Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognise our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is 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.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them 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 contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important 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, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions
The editor of Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar 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.

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 research without the express written consent of the author.

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.

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

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

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The proper citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. 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.

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.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
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.

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 acknowledgement 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 others 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 article and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Chief Editor of Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

• The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
• The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
• An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

Pintoe: Pengabdian Teuku Umar is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.