Jurnal Andalas: Rekayasa dan Penerapan Teknologi (JARPeT) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to ensuring the integrity of all published content. We follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and strive to foster a transparent, fair, and respectful scholarly environment. All parties involved in the publication process—editors, authors, reviewers, and publishers—are expected to adhere to these ethical principles.

1. Responsibilities of Editors

The editorial team of JARPeT is dedicated to making fair and unbiased decisions regarding manuscript submissions based solely on their scholarly merit. The following ethical guidelines apply to all editors:

• Impartiality: Editorial decisions are based on the content’s academic merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and contribution to the field, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
• Confidentiality: Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and members of the editorial team involved in the review process.
• Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, whether financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal.
• Ethical Oversight: The editors are responsible for identifying and preventing the publication of papers involving research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification. In cases of ethical concerns, editors will follow COPE guidelines to investigate and resolve the issue.
• Corrections and Retractions: In the event of significant errors or ethical breaches, the editorial team will promptly publish corrections, retractions, or clarifications as necessary to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to JARPeT are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original and free from plagiarism. Any content or data taken from other sources must be properly cited. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals or duplicating published work is considered unethical and unacceptable.
• Accurate Reporting: Authors are required to present accurate and verifiable data and results in their research. Any manipulation of data or misrepresentation of findings is a severe violation of publication ethics.
• Authorship Criteria: All authors listed on a manuscript should have made a significant contribution to the research and writing of the paper. Authors are expected to ensure that all contributors are properly credited, and no one should be included who did not contribute substantially to the work.
• Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of others' work is required. Authors must cite all relevant publications that have influenced or contributed to their research.
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of their research. If applicable, funding sources must also be disclosed.
• Ethical Research Practices: Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research complies with all relevant ethical standards, particularly in cases involving human subjects or animal welfare. Appropriate approvals and consent must be obtained, and ethical guidelines must be followed in these cases.
• Corrections and Retractions: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal and cooperate with the editorial team to correct or retract the paper if necessary.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of JARPeT’s publications. They are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities:

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript or any of its content with others, except with explicit permission from the editor.
• Impartiality and Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and without bias. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate, and reviews should be constructive, providing clear feedback based on academic merit and scientific rigor.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews in a timely manner to ensure that the publication process proceeds efficiently. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript or cannot complete the review within the specified timeframe, they should inform the editor immediately.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias their review. If a conflict exists, they should decline the invitation to review the manuscript.
• Ethical Oversight: Reviewers are responsible for identifying ethical issues in manuscripts, including potential plagiarism, duplication of content, or falsified data. They should notify the editors of any concerns regarding research misconduct or ethical violations.

4. Research Misconduct and Ethical Violations

JARPeT takes all allegations of research misconduct, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification, seriously. In cases where research misconduct is suspected, the journal will follow COPE guidelines to investigate the issue. Possible actions include contacting the authors’ institution, retracting the manuscript, or publishing a correction. JARPeT is committed to ensuring that all published research upholds the highest ethical standards.

5. Handling Complaints and Appeals

JARPeT encourages authors, reviewers, and readers to voice concerns about any aspect of the publication process. Complaints will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines, ensuring a fair and transparent investigation. If authors wish to appeal editorial decisions, they must submit a detailed explanation, which will be reviewed by the editorial board. The final decision on the appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief.