Senarai: Journal of Islamic Heritage and Civilization (the “Journal”) is committed to the accuracy, fairness, transparency, and permanence of the scholarly record. This statement establishes the ethical duties of authors, Editors, Reviewers, Administrative Staff, and the publisher. It applies to submitted manuscripts, peer-review records, editorial decisions, production materials, published articles, corrections, and other editorial notices.

Meaning of “Editors.” In this statement, the term Editors collectively means the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Editor. The term does not include a Reviewer or Administrative Staff. Whenever a provision assigns a duty to Editors collectively, each of those three editorial roles must perform the duty within the limits of the authority stated below. This statement is based on internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

Governing Principles

The Governing Principles establish how this statement must be interpreted and applied. They guide editorial judgment from the initial assessment of a manuscript through peer review, investigation, correction, and post-publication action. They also ensure that the same ethical standard applies to authors, Editors, Reviewers, Administrative Staff, and the publisher.

These principles do not replace the specific procedures set out below. They provide the basis for deciding matters that are not expressly regulated, resolving possible overlap between policies, and selecting a fair and proportionate response to each case.

1. Integrity of the scholarly record. Every editorial action must place the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the scholarly record first. The purpose of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is to provide readers with an accurate publication record, not to punish an honest error.
2. Editorial independence. Decisions on review, acceptance, revision, rejection, and post-publication action must be based on academic and ethical considerations. Commercial interests, institutional pressure, personal relationships, political interests, or the status of an author must not determine the outcome.
3. Fair and evidence-based process. A concern must be assessed from verifiable information and in its proper context. The person directly affected must ordinarily be informed of the material allegation and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. A report, similarity score, criticism, or disagreement does not by itself establish misconduct.
4. Confidentiality and limited disclosure. Manuscripts, review records, personal information, allegations, responses, and investigation materials must be protected. Information may be shared only with persons whose involvement is reasonably necessary for editorial assessment, investigation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record.
5. Consistency and proportionality. Comparable concerns should be handled according to comparable standards. The selected response must reflect the strength of the evidence, the seriousness and extent of the problem, its effect on the publication, the stage at which it is identified, and whether the conduct was an honest error, negligent act, or deliberate abuse.
6. Transparency and permanence. A material change to published content must be explained through a clear, dated, accessible, and linked editorial notice. The original publication record and relevant metadata must remain identifiable so that readers can understand what changed and why.
7. Accountability and protection from retaliation. Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Administrative Staff, and the publisher are accountable for conduct within their respective roles and must cooperate with a reasonable inquiry. No person may be disadvantaged merely for reporting a concern in good faith, providing evidence, or participating honestly in an assessment.

I. Core Publication Ethics

Division of Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewer, and Administrative Staff are separate. A recommendation, administrative action, or technical action must not be presented as a final editorial decision. The authority of each role is defined as follows:

Decision flow. The Reviewer submits an assessment to the Editor. The Editor evaluates the review and the author’s response and submits a recommendation. The Managing Editor verifies that the required process and records are complete. The Editor-in-Chief then determines and issues the final editorial decision. Administrative Staff provides administrative and technical support and implements the authorized decision without changing its substance.

1. Publication Decisions and Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief is the final editorial decision-maker. Only the Editor-in-Chief may issue the final decision to accept, require revision, or reject a manuscript. The decision must be based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, relevance to the Journal’s scope, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical compliance, the Reviewer reports, the Editor’s recommendation, and the completeness of the process confirmed by the Managing Editor. Commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, political belief, academic status, or the identity of the person raising a concern must not influence the decision.

The Editor-in-Chief may consider the recommendations of the Managing Editor, Editor, and Reviewer. Those recommendations are advisory and do not replace the Editor-in-Chief’s final judgment. The Editor may recommend rejection without external review when a manuscript is outside the Journal’s scope, lacks the minimum scholarly or ethical standard, is materially incomplete, or is otherwise unsuitable for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief determines whether that recommendation is approved.

When the Managing Editor or Editor has a material conflict of interest, the manuscript or case must be transferred to another Editor without that conflict. A submission authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewer, Administrative Staff, or a close collaborator must not receive preferential treatment. If the Editor-in-Chief has a material conflict or is the subject of the matter, the Editor-in-Chief must take no part in that specific decision, and the conflict procedure in Section 14 applies.

2. Fair Evaluation and Editorial Independence

Every submission must be evaluated consistently and on its academic merits. The publisher may support administration, infrastructure, preservation, and legal compliance but must not direct the academic outcome of an individual manuscript. Editors must perform their respective duties without commercial, political, institutional, financial, or personal pressure. Final editorial authority remains with the Editor-in-Chief as defined in this statement.

Editorial independence does not prevent the publisher from examining alleged editorial misconduct, unmanaged conflicts, procedural failure, or legal risk. Any such examination must respect academic judgment, confidentiality, and the integrity of the review record.

3. Confidentiality and Responsible Handling of Materials

Editors, Reviewers, and Administrative Staff must keep submitted manuscripts, correspondence, Reviewer identities, reports, data, and investigation records confidential. Information may be shared only with the corresponding author, the Editors handling the manuscript or case, the assigned Reviewers, the publisher, an institution, or another party whose involvement is reasonably necessary for review, investigation, preservation, or legal compliance.

Unpublished material must not be used, disclosed, copied, distributed, retained for an unrelated purpose, or uploaded to an unauthorized external service. This prohibition includes public or unapproved generative artificial intelligence services. Confidential information may be disclosed only when authorized, required by law, or reasonably necessary to address a credible ethical or safety concern.

Persons involved in an ethical assessment must preserve relevant records and must not alter, conceal, delete, or destroy evidence after becoming aware of a concern.

4. Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure

Authors must disclose financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, intellectual, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived to affect the research, its interpretation, or its presentation. All funding sources, grant identifiers where applicable, and the funder’s role in the research and publication process must be stated.

Editors and Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict before handling a manuscript or ethical concern. Relevant conflicts may include recent collaboration, supervisory relationships, direct competition, shared institutional affiliation, financial interest, close personal relationships, or prior involvement in the work. A person with a material conflict must withdraw, and the matter must be reassigned.

Failure to disclose a conflict may result in reassessment of the review or decision and may constitute malpractice when the omission is material, intentional, reckless, or seriously negligent.

5. Duties of Editors

1. Initial assessment. Editors must examine the manuscript’s scope, basic scholarly quality, completeness, originality indicators, required declarations, and compliance with the Journal’s submission requirements before peer review.
2. Similarity screening. The Journal may use iThenticate or another appropriate tool. A similarity score is a screening indicator, not proof of plagiarism. A score of 10% may be used as a general reference, but the editor must examine the source, location, extent, context, attribution, and nature of each match before making a decision.
3. Reviewer selection. Editors must select reviewers with relevant expertise and without a material conflict. Reviewers must not be chosen to secure a predetermined recommendation or to create a misleading appearance of independent review.
4. Double-blind review. Editors must take reasonable measures to protect author and reviewer identities in accordance with the Journal’s double-blind process. An unavoidable identification in the subject matter does not authorize disclosure of confidential information.
5. Evidence-based assessment. The Editor and Managing Editor must consider the Reviewer’s reasoning, the manuscript’s merits, and any documented ethical concern when preparing their recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief must consider the complete record before determining the final decision. No recommendation or decision may be based only on a Reviewer’s conclusion or a numerical screening result.
6. No coercive citation. Editors must not require citations for the purpose of increasing citations to the Journal, an editor, a reviewer, or an affiliated person. A requested citation must be academically relevant and reasonably necessary.
7. Communication. Editorial decisions and material revision requests must be stated clearly and, where practicable, supported by reasons sufficient for the author to understand the decision.
8. Integrity of the record. Editors must assess credible concerns before or after publication. The Managing Editor and Editor may recommend a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other notice. The Editor-in-Chief determines the final editorial action.

The collective duties assigned to Editors do not alter the division of authority stated above. The Managing Editor and Editor perform assessment, coordination, and recommendation functions; the Editor-in-Chief remains responsible for the final editorial decision.

6. Duties of Reviewers

1. Expertise and timeliness. A reviewer must accept an assignment only when able to assess the manuscript competently and within the stated period. Otherwise, the reviewer must decline or promptly inform the editor.
2. Confidentiality. A reviewer must treat the manuscript, review request, report, and related correspondence as confidential and must not share them without editorial authorization.
3. Objective assessment. Comments must be specific, evidence-based, respectful, and directed at the work. Personal criticism, hostile language, discrimination, retaliation, and unsupported allegations are prohibited.
4. Sources and ethical concerns. A reviewer should identify relevant uncited work and confidentially report suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified material, unethical research, citation manipulation, or another serious concern to the editor.
5. No misuse. A reviewer must not use unpublished ideas, data, images, arguments, translations, methods, or other material for personal, institutional, or third-party benefit.
6. Conflicts. A reviewer must disclose a material conflict or limitation in expertise and must not continue the review unless the editor determines that continued involvement is appropriate.
7. No manipulation. A reviewer must not impersonate another person, delegate the review without permission, submit a fabricated report, require irrelevant self-citations, or attempt to delay or influence a competing work for improper benefit.
8. Artificial intelligence. A reviewer must not upload a manuscript or confidential review material to a public or unauthorized generative artificial intelligence service. Any permitted tool use must comply with Journal instructions, confidentiality duties, and reviewer accountability.

7. Duties of Authors

1. Originality and attribution. Authors must submit original work, clearly identify borrowed words, ideas, data, images, translations, and methods, and cite the relevant sources accurately. Plagiarism, unattributed copying, disguised copying, and misleading reuse of an author’s own published material are prohibited.
2. Accurate reporting. Authors must describe the research honestly and accurately. Data, citations, quotations, documents, images, translations, dates, and other evidence must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively altered, or presented in a materially misleading manner.
3. Citation integrity. Citations must be relevant to the claim they support. Authors must not use fabricated references, excessive irrelevant citations, citation cartels, or coercive arrangements intended to manipulate citation indicators.
4. Data provenance and retention. Authors must be able to explain the origin of the research data and retain supporting records for a reasonable period. Raw data or documentation must be supplied when reasonably requested, subject to legal, ethical, confidentiality, cultural, and privacy restrictions.
5. Single submission and prior publication. The same or substantially similar manuscript must not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time. Prior publication, preprints where relevant, overlapping work, translations, conference versions, and related manuscripts must be disclosed to the editor.
6. Authorship. Authorship is limited to persons who made a substantial scholarly contribution, participated in drafting or critically revising the work, approved the final version, and accept accountability for it. All qualifying contributors must be listed, and non-author contributions must be acknowledged appropriately.
7. Changes in authorship. A request to add, remove, or reorder an author must be justified, approved in writing by all affected authors, and submitted before publication. After acceptance, such changes are exceptional and remain subject to the Journal’s authorship and metadata requirements. The Journal may request a contribution statement and institutional confirmation.
8. Research involving human participants or vulnerable groups. Authors must obtain the approvals, permissions, consent, and safeguards required by applicable law, institutional rules, and research-ethics standards. Identifying information must not be published without valid justification and appropriate consent.
9. Permissions and cultural materials. Authors must respect copyright, privacy, community protocols, archival conditions, and lawful restrictions governing manuscripts, photographs, sacred materials, oral histories, and culturally sensitive knowledge.
10. Conflicts and funding. Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding sources, grant information where applicable, and the funder’s role. A statement of no external funding or no conflict must be provided when that is the case.
11. Artificial intelligence. Authors must disclose material use of generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools in the research or preparation of the manuscript where required by the Journal. An artificial intelligence system cannot be an author. Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, originality, citations, confidentiality, permissions, and integrity.
12. Errors and cooperation. An author who discovers a material error or ethical problem must promptly inform the Journal, preserve relevant records, answer reasonable questions, and cooperate with any necessary correction, investigation, or retraction.

8. Data Sharing, Documentation, and Reproducibility

Authors must provide sufficient information for readers to understand the basis of the research and, where appropriate, verify its analysis. The Journal may request data, instruments, coding materials, images, transcripts, source records, permissions, or other supporting documentation during review or after publication.

When material cannot be shared because of law, consent, confidentiality, cultural sensitivity, security, archival restrictions, or third-party rights, the author must state the restriction and, where possible, provide a lawful and ethically appropriate alternative. A data-availability statement must not promise access that the author cannot lawfully provide.

9. Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing

The Journal publishes open-access content. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal the right of first publication. Unless an article states otherwise, published content is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Authors must obtain permission for copyrighted or restricted material not covered by an applicable exception or license. The Journal may delay publication, reject a manuscript, replace or remove unauthorized material, or publish a correction while preserving the scholarly record as far as legally possible.

Submission does not transfer ownership of confidential unpublished ideas to the Journal, Editors, or Reviewers. No person involved in evaluation may appropriate or commercially exploit submitted material.

10. Complaints and Editorial Appeals

A complaint may concern editorial conduct, peer-review administration, delay, communication, confidentiality, discrimination, conflict of interest, or another procedural matter. An appeal challenges a specific editorial decision. Each complaint or appeal must identify the relevant manuscript or article and state the grounds and supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the complaint or appeal to the Managing Editor or an Editor who was not materially involved in the disputed conduct or decision. The Managing Editor or Editor reviews the record and submits a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. If the matter concerns the Editor-in-Chief or requires the Editor-in-Chief’s recusal, it must be handled under Section 14. The Journal may decline repetitive correspondence that presents no new evidence, abusive submissions, or matters outside its authority, but it will not dismiss a substantiated concern merely because it is critical of the Journal.

An author or other directly affected party may submit one appeal within 30 calendar days after receiving the decision. The appeal must identify a material factual error, procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or significant evidence that was not reasonably available earlier. Disagreement with academic judgment alone is not sufficient. After considering the recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief determines the final appeal decision, except when recusal is required under Section 14.

11. Post-Publication Discussion and Editorial Notices

The Journal permits evidence-based post-publication discussion through letters, commentaries, responses, or direct correspondence with the Journal. The Editor and Managing Editor assess whether a response, further review, or public editorial notice is required and submit a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief determines the final post-publication action.

• Correction addresses a material error or omission that does not invalidate the article’s principal findings or overall reliability.
• Erratum identifies a material error introduced by the Journal during editing, typesetting, metadata preparation, or production.
• Corrigendum identifies a material error for which the author is responsible and which does not require retraction.
• Expression of Concern alerts readers to a serious unresolved concern while an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, materially delayed, or unable to reach a reliable result.
• Retraction is used when findings are unreliable, the work is redundant or substantially plagiarized, research is unethical, required authorization is absent, peer review or authorship was materially manipulated, or another serious problem invalidates the article or materially damages the integrity of the record.
• Removal is reserved for exceptional cases involving a binding legal requirement, serious privacy violation, immediate safety risk, or other circumstance in which continued access would cause substantial harm.

A notice must identify the affected article, state the reason in clear and neutral language, identify who is issuing the notice, carry its own date and persistent location, and link to the article. The article and notice should link to each other. A retracted article normally remains accessible and is clearly marked on the article page and document. When removal is unavoidable, a public record explaining the removal will remain unless prohibited by law.

The Journal will update relevant metadata and notify indexing or preservation services when reasonably necessary. A correction or retraction is not delayed solely because an author disagrees with the notice or declines to approve it. The author will ordinarily be invited to comment before publication of the notice.

II. Procedures for Publication Malpractice

12. Scope and Meaning of Malpractice

Publication malpractice or misconduct includes intentional, reckless, or seriously negligent conduct that compromises the fairness of editorial proceedings, the reliability of research, the rights of participants or contributors, or the integrity of the scholarly record. It may involve an author, the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, Reviewer, Administrative Staff, or the publisher. The examples in this statement are not exhaustive.

An honest error, good-faith scholarly disagreement, or difference in interpretation is not automatically misconduct. It may nevertheless require clarification, correction, retraction, or another editorial action when the published record is materially affected. The Journal may protect or correct the record without making a formal finding about a person’s intent.

The Journal determines editorial consequences within its publication process. A formal finding of research misconduct by an employee, student, or researcher normally remains the responsibility of the relevant institution or competent authority. The Journal may act before, during, or after an institutional proceeding when action is necessary to protect readers, participants, confidential material, or the scholarly record.

13. Reporting a Concern

Anyone may report suspected malpractice concerning a submission, review, editorial process, published article, or editorial notice. Reports should be sent to senarai@tunasharapanummat.or.id and should include:

• the title, author, manuscript number, DOI, URL, or other identifying information;
• a clear and specific description of the concern;
• the relevant documents, links, comparison text, data, correspondence, chronology, or other evidence; and
• the reporter’s contact information, unless there is a reasonable basis for requesting anonymity.

The Journal will consider an anonymous report when it contains specific and verifiable evidence. The identity of a reporter will be protected as far as reasonably possible, but confidentiality cannot be guaranteed when disclosure is required by law, necessary for a fair response, or required for an institutional or regulatory investigation.

A person reporting a concern must act honestly and must not knowingly submit false evidence, impersonate another person, harass a party, or use the procedure to obtain an improper academic or personal advantage. A mistaken report made in good faith is not malpractice.

14. Assessment and Investigation Procedure

1. Receipt and record. The Journal records the report, preserves the submitted evidence, and normally acknowledges a substantive report within 7 business days.
2. Conflict check and assignment. A concern involving an author or Reviewer is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to the Managing Editor or an Editor without a material conflict. A concern involving an Editor is handled by the Managing Editor and reported to the Editor-in-Chief. A concern involving the Managing Editor is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an Editor without a material conflict. A concern involving Administrative Staff is handled by the Managing Editor and reported to the Editor-in-Chief. A concern involving the Editor-in-Chief is handled by the publisher with the Managing Editor or an Editor who has no material conflict; the Editor-in-Chief must take no part in that matter. A concern involving the publisher is handled by the Editor-in-Chief with the Managing Editor or an Editor without a material conflict.
3. Jurisdiction and initial assessment. The assigned person determines whether the report is sufficiently specific, supported, relevant to the Journal, and serious enough to investigate. The Journal may request clarification or additional evidence before proceeding.
4. Closure at screening. A report may be closed when it is clearly unsupported, outside the Journal’s authority, duplicative without new evidence, based only on academic disagreement, or demonstrably made in bad faith. The reason for closure must be recorded.
5. Notice and response. When further examination is warranted, the person whose conduct or work is questioned is informed of the material allegation and normally given 10 business days to respond. The notice may be delayed or limited when necessary to preserve evidence, protect a person, maintain legal confidentiality, or prevent interference with the assessment.
6. Evidence review. The Journal may examine the manuscript and publication files, similarity reports, peer-review history, correspondence, author-contribution records, declarations, data, source material, permissions, and the response received. Relevant exculpatory and contradictory evidence must also be considered.
7. Independent consultation. The Journal may seek confidential advice from an independent subject specialist, research-integrity adviser, institution, funder, ethics committee, archive, database, legal adviser, or competent authority. Only information reasonably necessary for that consultation should be disclosed.
8. Interim protection. The Journal may pause review, production, or publication; preserve records; restrict access to confidential material; request underlying data; replace a reviewer; or publish an Expression of Concern when readers require prompt warning about a serious unresolved risk.
9. Decision. The Managing Editor or Editor assigned to the matter records the material facts, evidence considered, response received, and a reasoned recommendation stating whether the concern is substantiated, partly substantiated, inconclusive, or not substantiated. The Editor-in-Chief determines the final editorial decision and the required action. When the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of the concern or is recused, the publisher determines that specific outcome from the assessment prepared by the Managing Editor or Editor assigned under this Section.
10. Implementation. After the final decision, the Managing Editor directs the procedural implementation, and Administrative Staff performs the authorized administrative and technical actions. Implementation must occur as promptly as practicable, normally within 7 working days. This period applies to implementing the decision, not to the entire investigation. Neither the Managing Editor nor Administrative Staff may change the substance of the final decision.
11. Notification and closure. Directly affected parties are informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality and law. Any public notice must be factual, neutral, linked to the relevant article, and limited to information needed to protect the scholarly record.

15. Evidence, Standard of Assessment, and Timeframes

A report does not establish misconduct. The Journal will not reject, correct, sanction, or retract solely because an allegation was made, an author declined to agree with an allegation, or a similarity score exceeded a numerical threshold. Similarity must be assessed qualitatively, including the source, context, attribution, extent, and effect of the matching material.

For an editorial decision, the Journal applies the balance of probabilities unless applicable law or a binding rule requires another standard. The nature and strength of the evidence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the finding and the possible action. An inconclusive institutional response does not prevent the Journal from correcting an unreliable publication when the editorial evidence justifies that action.

A routine assessment may take approximately 30–90 days. Complex cases may take longer because of the volume of evidence, external consultation, institutional proceedings, legal requirements, unavailable records, or difficulty obtaining a response. The Journal will avoid unnecessary delay, keep a record of material extensions, and communicate a revised timeframe when reasonably practicable.

16. Findings, Corrective Action, and Restrictions

Depending on the evidence, seriousness, and stage of publication, the Journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• request an explanation, correction, citation, disclosure, authorship statement, permission, source record, or supporting data;
• pause peer review, production, publication, or consideration of another submission while the concern is assessed;
• reject a manuscript or close it as withdrawn from editorial consideration after a material breach is established;
• disregard a compromised review and obtain a new independent review;
• reassign the manuscript, repeat a procedurally compromised process, or reverse an unreliable editorial decision;
• publish a correction, erratum, corrigendum, expression of concern, retraction, replacement notice, or another linked editorial notice;
• remove an editor or reviewer from a particular assignment, position, or reviewer database;
• restrict submissions, peer-review service, or editorial service for a defined period, or permanently in a severe, repeated, or deliberately deceptive case;
• notify an institution, employer, funder, ethics committee, archive, database, index, or competent authority when the evidence and seriousness justify notification; or
• take no further action and close the case when the concern is not substantiated.

Actions must be proportionate to the evidence, the effect on the scholarly record, the risk to participants or readers, any pattern of conduct, the person’s role, and the person’s cooperation. Editorial correction protects the literature; it is not automatically a disciplinary finding. The Journal does not impose a financial penalty for reporting a concern or for issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

Notification to an institution or authority must be limited to relevant information and must not be used as a threat to obtain agreement with an editorial decision. The Journal may request that the institution preserve evidence or report the outcome of its investigation.

17. Role-Specific Malpractice and Possible Measures

The examples and possible measures in this table are indicative. The Journal will determine the appropriate response from the evidence and circumstances of each case.

18. Public Notices, Version Control, and Preservation

A public editorial notice must be issued separately from the article, carry a clear title, be freely accessible, and include sufficient information for readers to understand the status of the work. The notice must avoid defamatory, punitive, or speculative language and must distinguish established facts from unresolved matters.

The original publication date and citation identity should remain visible. Corrected versions must be clearly identified and linked to the relevant notice. A retracted article must remain identifiable in the Journal’s website, PDF where technically practicable, DOI metadata, and preservation records. Silent replacement of material content is prohibited.

When an article must be removed for an exceptional reason, the Journal will retain a tombstone page or equivalent bibliographic record stating why the content is unavailable, unless a legal order prohibits such disclosure.

19. Appeals in Malpractice Cases

A directly affected person may submit one appeal within 30 calendar days after receiving the final decision. The appeal must identify a material factual error, procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or significant new evidence. Repetition of arguments already considered, disagreement with a reasoned academic judgment, or refusal to accept an editorial notice is not sufficient.

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the appeal to the Managing Editor or an Editor who was not materially responsible for the original assessment. The assigned Managing Editor or Editor may recommend that the decision be upheld, modified, or reconsidered. After reviewing that recommendation and the appeal record, the Editor-in-Chief determines the final appeal decision. If the appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief or requires recusal, the procedure in Section 14 applies. A protective action, restriction, or public notice may remain in effect during the appeal when necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record.

20. Records, Confidentiality, Cooperation, and Policy Consistency

The Journal will maintain appropriate records of reports, evidence, responses, consultations, decisions, notices, implementation, and appeals. Access is limited to persons who require the information for editorial, investigative, legal, preservation, or governance purposes. Records will be retained for a period reasonably necessary to document the decision and protect the scholarly record.

Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Administrative Staff, and the publisher must preserve relevant material and cooperate honestly with a reasonable inquiry. Non-response does not automatically prove misconduct, but the Journal may decide the matter on the available evidence after a reasonable opportunity to respond has been provided.

This statement must be read together with the Journal’s Plagiarism, Publication Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions Policy, Peer Review Process, Authorship requirements, Artificial Intelligence Policy, Copyright and Licensing Policy, and other applicable editorial rules. If provisions overlap, the Journal will interpret them consistently to protect fair process, editorial independence, affected persons, readers, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Policy contact: senarai@tunasharapanummat.or.id