01Plagiarism Policy

Definition and Forms

Plagiarism is presenting another person's words, data, ideas, figures, or results as one's own without proper acknowledgement. JAAB treats the following as plagiarism:

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Reusing one's own previously published text, data, or results without disclosure and citation is self-plagiarism. Authors must cite their earlier work and explain clearly what the new manuscript adds. Limited reuse of standard wording, such as a description of an established method, is acceptable only when the source is cited.

Authors working on related studies, including different organisations in the same programme or study cohort, must write each manuscript independently. Shared templates or passages copied between manuscripts by different authors are treated as plagiarism.

Duplicate Submission and Duplicate Publication

• Duplicate submission: submitting the same or a substantially similar manuscript to JAAB and another journal at the same time. A manuscript may be submitted elsewhere only after the authors have withdrawn it from JAAB in writing and the editor has confirmed the withdrawal.
• Duplicate (redundant) publication: publishing the same data, analysis, and conclusions in more than one article, in any language, without disclosure and justification. This includes a translation of an already published article.
• Disclosure: if the manuscript is derived from a thesis, final project report, or conference presentation, or overlaps with another manuscript, the authors must say so in the Comments for the Editor at submission.

Screening

The editor checks manuscripts for originality, and may also check at any later stage, including after publication. Similarity-detection software may be used. A similarity report supports the editor's judgement but does not decide the outcome. The editor considers the source, extent, and location of any overlap, and whether it is properly cited. No similarity percentage by itself determines acceptance or rejection.

Handling Plagiarism by Stage

02Allegations of Research Misconduct

Scope

This procedure covers concerns about submitted or published work, and about the conduct of authors, reviewers, or editors, including:

• fabrication or falsification of data, financial figures, calculations, or results;
• plagiarism, duplicate submission, or duplicate publication;
• authorship misconduct, including guest, gift, or ghost authorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• use of confidential organisational or personal data without permission;
• manipulation of citations or of the peer review process;
• breaches of confidentiality by reviewers or editors, or their misuse of unpublished material.

Who May Report and How

Anyone may raise a concern, including readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and institutions. The report should be sent in writing to the Chief Editor and should include:

• the article title, or the submission ID if the manuscript is unpublished;
• a specific description of the concern;
• the supporting evidence, such as the original source, the overlapping passages, or the inconsistent data;
• the reporter's name and contact details.

Anonymous reports are considered when they contain specific evidence that can be verified.

Case-Handling Procedure

1. Acknowledgement and record. The receipt of the report is acknowledged. The Chief Editor opens a confidential case record covering the date, the article or submission, the nature of the concern, the evidence, the people involved, and every later action and decision.
2. Initial assessment. The Chief Editor checks whether the concern falls within the journal's remit and is supported by evidence. If the Chief Editor has a conflict of interest, another editor without a conflict takes this role. The editor may consult a member of the editorial board or a subject expert who has no conflict of interest. Concerns without supporting evidence are closed and the reason is recorded.
3. Opportunity to respond. The corresponding author receives a written description of the concern and the evidence. In serious cases, all co-authors are informed. The authors are invited to respond in writing within a stated period. Review or production of an unpublished manuscript is suspended while the case is open.
4. Editorial decision. The editor weighs the evidence and the authors' response and decides on a proportionate outcome. Possible outcomes are: no further action; clarification or guidance to the authors; revision; rejection of an unpublished manuscript; or, for a published article, a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
5. Closure. The authors receive the decision and its reasons in writing. The reporter is told that the matter has been addressed, within the limits of confidentiality.

Confidentiality and Fairness

• Information about a case is shared only with those who need it to resolve the case.
• The reporter's identity is not disclosed to the authors without the reporter's consent.
• No conclusion is reached before the authors have had an opportunity to respond.
• Anyone with a conflict of interest in the case takes no part in handling it.
• The journal makes no public statement about an open case, apart from an expression of concern where one is warranted.
• Allegations found to be knowingly false or malicious are recorded as such.

Escalation to Institutions

The journal cannot carry out a formal institutional investigation. The editor may refer the case to the authors' institution, and where relevant to their employer or funder, in these situations:

• the authors do not respond;
• their response does not resolve the concern;
• the evidence points to serious misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, or extensive plagiarism.

The journal may issue an expression of concern while the institution's inquiry is in progress, and it takes the institution's findings into account in its final decision. The publisher, LPPM Politeknik Jambi, supports the editor in these cases. Decisions on content remain with the editor.

03Conflict of Interest

Definition

A conflict of interest exists when financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests could influence, or could reasonably appear to influence, the conduct, reporting, evaluation, or editorial handling of research. Having a conflict is not in itself misconduct. Failing to disclose it is.

Declaration Procedure

• At submission: authors state any conflict of interest and their funding in the Comments for the Editor. The anonymised manuscript file must not identify the authors.
• After acceptance: a "Declaration of Competing Interest" and a "Funding" statement are added to the final manuscript. If there is no conflict, the declaration reads: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."
• Reviewers and editors report any conflict as soon as they become aware of it and withdraw from the manuscript.
• Undisclosed conflicts found later are handled under Section 02 and may lead to a correction or, where the conflict could have biased the work, a retraction.

04Post-Publication Discussion

Comments and Letters on Published Articles

JAAB welcomes scholarly discussion of published articles. The journal website has no online comment feature, so readers should send a comment or letter by email through the channels in Section 02, with the subject line "JAAB – Comment on Published Article". A comment should:

• identify the article by title, volume, issue, and pages, and by DOI where one is available;
• address the article's methods, data, analysis, or conclusions, with supporting evidence or references;
• be written in a professional and respectful tone, free of personal remarks;
• include the commenter's name, affiliation, and contact details, and declare any conflict of interest.

Author Response

The editor assesses each comment. If it raises a substantive point, the editor sends it to the corresponding author and invites a written response. Where the exchange adds to the scholarly record, the editor may publish the comment and the authors' response together, with links to the original article.

Possible Outcomes

• The comment is answered privately and the matter is closed.
• The comment and the authors' response are published.
• A correction, expression of concern, or retraction is issued (Section 05).
• If the comment alleges misconduct, the case is referred to the procedure in Section 02.

05Corrections and Retractions

The purpose of these notices is to keep the scholarly record accurate, not to punish authors. Requests may come from authors, readers, reviewers, or editors. The editor makes the final decision, based on the evidence and on this policy.

Publication and Linking of Notices

• Each notice is published as a separate, freely accessible item. It is titled "Correction:", "Expression of Concern:", or "Retraction:" followed by the original title, and it gives the full citation of the original article.
• The notice links to the original article, and the original article's page links to the notice. Where the article has a DOI, the notice cites it.
• A retraction notice states the reason, identifies who requested the retraction, and records whether all authors agreed. It avoids defamatory language.
• Every change to a published article is recorded. A change that affects content or metadata is always accompanied by a notice.

Removal and Withdrawal

A published article is removed only in exceptional cases. Examples are a legal infringement, a court order, or content that poses a serious risk to privacy or safety. In such cases, the article's metadata and a notice explaining the removal remain online.

This is different from the withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript. Authors request withdrawal in writing, and it takes effect once the editor confirms it.