Publication Ethics

Lentera Cenderkia: Journal of Community Service is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and taking all possible action against any publication malpractice. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among other things, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and LENTERA CENDEKIA does not tolerate plagiarism in any form.
Authors submitting articles: certify that the content of the manuscript is original. Furthermore, the author's submission also implies that the manuscript has not been previously published in any language, in whole or in part, and is not currently being submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers within LENTERA CENDEKIA must fully commit to good publication practices and accept responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set out in the COPE Code of Ethics for Journal Editors. As part of its Core Practices, COPE has established guidelines at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification of quotations, or plagiarism in the creation, conduct, or review of research, the writing of an article, or in the reporting of research results. When authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious misconduct involving articles published in a scientific journal, the Editor is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editor and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to assist them in resolving complaints and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegations by the Editor. Submitted manuscripts found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction may be published and will link to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegations and assessing whether they are consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individual alleging misconduct has any relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or other substantial research misconduct is a possibility, the allegation is shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all co-authors, is asked to provide a detailed response. Once the response is received and evaluated, additional review and the involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be sought. For cases where misconduct is unlikely, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published as a letter to the editor, often including a correction notice and corrections to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have a significant obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, the journal of devotion: LENTERA CENDEKIA will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Complaints and Appeals
Lentera Cendekia: Journal of Community Service will have clear procedures for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. Complaints will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Complaints will be handled in accordance with the journal's business processes, including editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer conduct, peer-review manipulation, and other matters. Complaints will be processed in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Ethical Oversight
If research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript to ensure compliance with the ethics of research involving animals and humans. If necessary, authors must obtain valid ethical clearance from a legal association or organization.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors must clearly justify whether the data or information will be kept securely confidential.

Editor's Duties

1. Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2. Fair play: An editor shall at all times evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

3. 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.

4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Reviewer Duties

1. 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.

2. Timeliness: Any selected reviewer 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.

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

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

5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also alert the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts 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

1. 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 inaccurate statements constitute unethical or unacceptable behavior.

2. Originality and Plagiarism: 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.

3. 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment 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.

5. Authorship of the Article: 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. If 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 paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

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

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.