Publication Ethics

The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed JAPHTN-HAN journal is an essential element in developing a coherent and respected body of knowledge in the fields of constitutional law and administrative law. Publications reflect both the quality of the authors’ work and the credibility of the institutions supporting them. To maintain high standards of scholarship, JAPHTN-HAN upholds strict principles of publication ethics.

All parties involved in the publishing process authors, editors, peer reviewers, the publisher, and affiliated organizations are required to comply with these ethical guidelines. Any article that fails to meet these standards may be rejected or withdrawn from publication.

As the official journal of the Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara (APHTN-HAN), the Editorial Board guarantees that editorial decisions are made independently, without influence from commercial or political interests.

The journal is committed to the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics, following the Elsevier's Policies and Ethics and COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Ethical conduct is required of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

Core Ethical Principles

  • No plagiarism or misconduct: plagiarism, self‑plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, citation manipulation, and undisclosed conflicts of interest are prohibited.
  • Transparency and integrity: submissions must be original, accurate, and verifiable, with proper acknowledgment of sources.
  • Confidentiality: editors and reviewers keep all manuscripts and related information confidential.
  • Fair evaluation: manuscripts are assessed on academic merit without discrimination.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions
Editors are responsible for deciding which articles will be published. Decisions are based on academic merit, originality, and relevance, guided by the policies of the editorial board and applicable legal provisions on defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.

2. Fair Play
Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on academic content, without discrimination based on race, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

3. Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential and share information only with those directly involved in the publication process.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials in submitted manuscripts may not be used in editors’ own research without the authors’ written consent. Editors must avoid situations that create conflicts of interest.


Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers assist editors by providing objective and constructive feedback to improve the quality of manuscripts.

2. Timeliness
Reviewers should complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the editor if they are unable to do so.

3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Information must not be shared without editorial approval.

4. Objectivity and Constructive Criticism
Reviews should be objective, focused on the manuscript’s content, and delivered respectfully. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

5. Source Acknowledgment
Reviewers should ensure proper citation of relevant works and report any plagiarism or substantial overlap with other publications.

6. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline the review if their impartiality may be compromised.


Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards
Authors must present accurate, objective, and detailed accounts of their research. Fabrication or falsification of data is unethical and unacceptable.

2. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure their work is original and properly cite the work of others. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited.

3. Multiple or Redundant Publications
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must give proper credit to all sources that influenced their research.

5. Authorship
Only individuals who made significant contributions to the research should be listed as authors. All co-authors must approve the final version and consent to submission. Ghost and guest authorship are unethical.

6. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could influence their research.

7. Responsibility for Published Works
If errors are discovered in a published article, authors must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in correcting or retracting the work.


Peer Review and Editorial Process

  1. Initial Screening: The Managing Editor reviews scope, formatting (Chicago style), and originality using Turnitin (similarity ≤ 30%). Noncompliant manuscripts are returned for correction.
  2. Section Editor Evaluation: Assessment of academic merit, thematic relevance, and suitability for peer review.
  3. Double Blind Review: At least two independent experts evaluate originality, methodology, and scholarly contribution anonymously.
  4. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ reports. Outcomes include Accepted, Accepted with Minor or Major Revisions, Resubmission Required, or Rejected.

Open Access and Copyright

All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License


Plagiarism Policy

JAPHTN HAN prohibits all forms of plagiarism, including full, partial, and self plagiarism. All manuscripts are screened with Turnitin (similarity ≤ 30%). Submissions exceeding this threshold or showing unethical copying are rejected. Authors are encouraged to use citation managers such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote to maintain proper referencing practices.


Retraction, Withdrawal, and Removal Policy

JAPHTN HAN follows COPE aligned best practices regarding corrections and article integrity.

  • Retraction: May be initiated by editors, authors, or institutions for ethical violations or serious errors that invalidate conclusions. A formal notice is published, the online version is watermarked “Retracted,” and the HTML version is removed while metadata remain accessible.
  • Withdrawal: Prior to publication, manuscripts may be withdrawn for ethical breaches or substantive errors. Authors must submit a formal withdrawal request.
  • Article Removal for Legal Reasons: In rare cases such as defamation, court orders, or security threats, the full text may be removed while leaving title and metadata with a removal notice.
  • Replacement: Where inaccuracies pose significant risks, authors may request replacement with a corrected version, following retraction protocols and providing a documented modification history.