Publication Ethics

SCHEMA: Studies of Contemporary Approaches and Management is committed to maintaining high standards of integrity, transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. The journal's publication ethics policies are guided by internationally recognized principles of responsible research and publication practice, including the core practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, are expected to uphold ethical standards throughout manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication processes.

1.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent original scholarly work. Any ideas, data, text, figures, tables, or other materials derived from the work of others must be appropriately acknowledged and cited.

Plagiarism in any form, including unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and substantial reuse of previously published material without proper disclosure, is unacceptable.

1.2 Accurate Reporting

Authors are responsible for presenting research findings accurately, honestly, and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation, inappropriate alteration of data, misleading reporting, and deliberate omission of relevant findings constitute serious breaches of research integrity.

1.3 Data Integrity and Availability

Authors should retain accurate records of the data underlying their research and, where appropriate and ethically permissible, make relevant data available to editors, reviewers, or readers for verification and scholarly reuse.

Restrictions arising from participant confidentiality, legal requirements, contractual obligations, intellectual property considerations, or other legitimate ethical concerns should be clearly disclosed.

1.4 Multiple, Redundant, and Concurrent Publication

Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. Manuscripts that have already been published, in whole or in substantial part, should not be submitted as original publications without appropriate disclosure, citation, and editorial justification.

1.5 Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the conception or design of the work, data acquisition or analysis, interpretation of findings, manuscript preparation or critical revision, and approval of the final version.

Guest authorship, gift authorship, honorary authorship, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.

1.6 Changes in Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must be supported by a clear explanation and agreement from all affected authors. The editorial team reserves the right to request further documentation before approving authorship changes.

1.7 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, interpretation of findings, or publication process.

Sources of financial support and funding should be disclosed transparently. If no competing interests exist, authors should provide an appropriate declaration.

1.8 Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants, personal data, vulnerable populations, or other ethically sensitive research activities must comply with applicable institutional, national, and disciplinary ethical standards.

Where ethical approval is required, authors should provide the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review body and relevant approval information. Informed consent must be obtained where applicable.

1.9 Fundamental Errors in Published Work

If authors discover a significant error, inaccuracy, or integrity concern in their published article, they are expected to inform the journal promptly and cooperate with the editorial team in issuing an appropriate correction, clarification, retraction, or other post-publication notice.

2.1 Fair and Independent Editorial Decisions

Editors are responsible for evaluating manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and contribution to knowledge. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political belief, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly quality.

2.2 Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must remain independent from commercial, financial, institutional, political, or personal influence. The publisher supports the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team in matters concerning manuscript assessment and publication decisions.

2.3 Confidentiality

Editors must treat submitted manuscripts and related correspondence as confidential. Information concerning manuscripts may be disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process when necessary.

2.4 Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose and avoid handling manuscripts where they have financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflicts of interest that could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise editorial independence.

When a conflict exists, the manuscript should be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

2.5 Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team or editorial board must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions. The submitting editor or board member must not participate in reviewer selection, editorial assessment, or the final publication decision concerning their own manuscript.

2.6 Handling Ethical Concerns

Editors are responsible for taking reasonable action when credible concerns regarding research or publication misconduct are raised. Ethical concerns will be evaluated fairly and objectively regardless of whether they arise before or after publication.

3.1 Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for purposes unrelated to the review process.

3.2 Objectivity and Constructive Review

Reviewers should provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful assessments. Personal criticism of authors, hostile language, discriminatory comments, or recommendations based on non-academic considerations are unacceptable.

3.3 Competence and Timeliness

A reviewer who believes that they lack sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript or cannot complete the review within the requested period should inform the editor promptly and decline the review where appropriate.

3.4 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest involving the authors, institutions, research topic, financial interests, professional relationships, or other circumstances that could affect the independence of their assessment.

3.5 Recognition of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, inappropriate citation practices, ethical concerns, or substantial similarity between the manuscript and other published or unpublished work of which they are aware.

PT. Cendekia Indonesia Lestari, as the publisher of SCHEMA, is committed to supporting editorial independence, research integrity, transparent journal management, appropriate publication infrastructure, and responsible scholarly communication.

The publisher will not interfere with editorial decisions based on commercial or non-academic considerations and will support the editorial team in addressing ethical concerns, corrections, retractions, and other matters affecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

SCHEMA takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Potential misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Manipulation of figures, images, or research results
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Simultaneous submission to multiple journals
• Citation manipulation
• Peer-review manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Inappropriate authorship practices
• Unethical research involving human participants or confidential data
• Unauthorized use of copyrighted or proprietary material

Where concerns arise, the editorial team may request explanations, original data, ethical approval documentation, authorship statements, or other relevant evidence. Where necessary, the journal may contact authors' institutions or other appropriate bodies in accordance with responsible publication ethics procedures.

Artificial intelligence tools and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, citations, data, interpretations, and conclusions contained in their manuscripts. Substantial use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation should be transparently disclosed where appropriate.

AI-assisted technologies must not be used to fabricate data or references, manipulate results, create misleading evidence, conceal plagiarism, or otherwise compromise research integrity.

SCHEMA is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. When significant errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal may issue an appropriate correction, retraction, or expression of concern.

A correction may be issued when an otherwise reliable article contains an error that does not invalidate the principal findings or conclusions.

A retraction may be considered where reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings are substantially unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, serious copyright or legal concerns, compromised peer review, or other major breaches of publication integrity.

An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions have been raised concerning a publication but available evidence is inconclusive or an investigation remains ongoing.

Post-publication notices will be linked clearly to the affected article and will state the reason for the editorial action as transparently as reasonably possible.

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other parties may raise concerns regarding editorial procedures, peer review, publication ethics, editorial decisions, or published content.

Complaints and appeals should clearly describe the concern and provide relevant supporting information. The journal will assess complaints fairly, confidentially, and independently where possible.

An appeal against an editorial decision must present substantive scholarly or procedural grounds and should not merely express disagreement with reviewer recommendations or the final decision.

Authors must respect intellectual property rights and obtain permission where required for the reproduction or adaptation of copyrighted materials. All third-party materials must be appropriately attributed.

Copyright ownership, licensing terms, and open-access conditions are governed by the journal's separate Copyright and Licensing Policy.

SCHEMA supports responsible scholarly discussion concerning published articles. Readers may bring substantial errors, ethical concerns, or other issues affecting the reliability of published work to the attention of the editorial team.

Where appropriate, the journal will investigate concerns and take proportionate editorial action to preserve the reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.