The editorial board has established guidelines for scientific publication ethics at Citrakara to maintain manuscript quality and prevent publication misconduct or plagiarism during the publication process. These ethical guidelines apply to authors, editors, reviewers, and journal administrators. These publication ethics are based on LIPI Regulation No. 5/2014 on Scientific Publications. COPE Citrakara addresses three principles underlying scientific publication ethics, namely (1) neutrality, which means freedom from conflicts of interest, (2) fairness, which means the protection of authors’ rights, and (3) integrity, which means freedom from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. 

In accordance with COPE LIPI (LIPI Head Regulation No. 5 of 2014 on Scientific Publication Ethics), four pillars of scientific publication must be adhered to: (1) practices related to the publisher’s responsibilities, which include establishing publication policies and programs, facilitating the work of editors and reviewers, respecting the decisions of editors and reviewers, and determining sponsors and selecting third parties. In publication practices, publishers are obligated to ensure that submissions comply with Scientific Publication Ethics as a whole. Regarding sponsorship, publishers must ensure that sponsors and third parties do not hinder the review process or influence journal policies and programs; (2) practices related to the duties of editors, which include decision-making regarding manuscript publication, organizing manuscript reviews, and ensuring the fairness of review outcomes, the confidentiality of content, and protection against manuscript manipulation. (3) Practices related to the duties of reviewers, which include reviewing manuscripts both openly and confidentially, verifying the accuracy and authenticity of data sources, references, and concepts, as well as the objectivity of the content, and conducting neutral reviews. (4) Practices related to the duties of authors, namely examining practices related to the duties of authors, including manuscript authority, statements of manuscript authenticity, detection of possible manuscript duplication, acknowledgment of sponsorship, statements of authority, and statements of research funding sources.

Citrakara is a journal that aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles, and case studies focused on design or research in the fields of advertising, graphic design, photography, audiovisual media, multimedia, animation, and game design, as well as related topics that have not been published elsewhere in any language or are currently under review for publication anywhere. The following statement outlines the ethical conduct expected of all parties involved in the publication of articles in this journal. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The following are the detailed rules and responsibilities of publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors.

Authors’ Responsibilities

1. Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate account of the original research conducted and an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly and without falsification, fabrication, or improper manipulation of data. A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Deceptive or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behavior. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s submission guidelines.

2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original work. Manuscripts must not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editor has agreed to concurrent publication. Relevant previous works and publications, whether by other researchers or the authors themselves, must be acknowledged and properly cited. Primary sources should be cited whenever possible. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors generally should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Authors are also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Multiple publications arising from a single research project must be clearly identified, and the primary publication must be cited.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that have influenced the nature of the work. Proper acknowledgment of others’ work must always be provided.

5. Authorship of Papers: The authorship of research publications must accurately reflect individual contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or publication are listed in the acknowledgments section, authors must ensure that all authors have reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.

6. Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: Authors must clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that pose unusual hazards inherent in their use

Editor's Responsibilities

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the editorial board’s review report, the editor may accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript. The validity of the work in question and its significance to researchers and readers should always guide these decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and constrained by applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. Editors are responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and to maintain the integrity of the published record.

2. Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that every manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must organize and conduct peer review fairly and judiciously. Editors must describe their peer review process in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are subject to peer review. Editors must select appropriate peer reviewers for papers under consideration for publication by choosing individuals with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

3. Fair Play: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content, regardless of the author’s gender, race, religion, nationality, etc. An essential part of the responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions is upholding the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a position of power to make decisions regarding publication, which makes it crucial that this process be as fair and unbiased as possible.

4. Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes properly informed consent for the actual research presented, as well as consent for publication where applicable.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal editors shall not use unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the authors’ written consent. Editors must not be involved in decisions regarding papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. It must not be disclosed or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.

2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers must immediately notify the journal if they discover discrepancies, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, become aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that errors may have occurred. Whether during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, reviewers must, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal requests further information or advice.

3. Objectivity Standards: Reviews of submitted manuscripts must be conducted objectively, and reviewers must clearly articulate their views with supporting arguments. Reviewers must follow the journal’s instructions regarding the specific feedback required of them, unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should explain which additional investigations are recommended to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which would merely reinforce or expand upon the work

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper. In the case of double-blind reviews, if they suspect the authors’ identities, they should inform the journal if this knowledge raises a potential conflict of interest.

5. Timeliness: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable timeframe. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident that they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe, and should inform the journal immediately if they require an extension. If a reviewer feels it is impossible to complete the manuscript review within the specified timeframe, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.