1. Publication Ethics and General Principles

J-LKF recognizes that the publication of reliable scholarly research requires ethical conduct at every stage of research, manuscript preparation, submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication.

The journal follows internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, informed by the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The journal's ethical principles include:

1. Maintaining the originality, accuracy, and reliability of scholarly publications.
2. Ensuring fair, independent, confidential, and academically justified editorial decisions.
3. Preventing plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, and other forms of research misconduct.
4. Promoting transparency in authorship, research methods, data reporting, funding, and competing interests.
5. Protecting research participants, confidential information, intellectual property, and legitimate scholarly interests.
6. Providing appropriate mechanisms for complaints, academic discussion, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.
7. Maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the scholarly publication record.

All parties involved in the journal's publication activities are expected to comply with these principles and the applicable editorial policies.

2. Ethical Responsibilities

Responsibility for ethical scholarly publishing is shared among authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. Each party has distinct obligations to maintain the integrity of the editorial and publication process.

2.1. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the originality, accuracy, completeness, and integrity of their submitted manuscripts and supporting materials.

Authors must:

• Present research methods, findings, analyses, and interpretations accurately and transparently.
• Ensure that submitted manuscripts constitute original scholarly work.
• Properly acknowledge and cite relevant sources, including previously published work.
• Avoid simultaneous submission, redundant publication, plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, and inappropriate manipulation.
• Meet the journal's authorship criteria and ensure that all listed authors approve the manuscript and its submission.
• Disclose relevant funding, competing interests, and contributions to the research.
• Obtain and report applicable research ethics approval, participant consent, and other necessary permissions.
• Retain appropriate research records and provide supporting information when reasonably requested for verification.
• Disclose relevant use of generative artificial intelligence in accordance with the journal's applicable policy.
• Promptly inform the editorial office when significant errors, inaccuracies, or integrity concerns are discovered after publication.

Authorship eligibility, author contributions, and changes to authorship are governed by the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

2.2. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, confidentially, independently, and according to scholarly merit.

Editors must:

• Evaluate manuscripts on the basis of originality, quality, scientific relevance, methodology, and scholarly contribution.
• Avoid discrimination based on personal identity, gender, nationality, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, religion, or political views.
• Protect confidential manuscript information and unpublished research materials.
• Select reviewers with relevant disciplinary expertise and appropriate independence.
• Identify and manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Base publication decisions on independent scholarly evaluation rather than commercial or institutional considerations.
• Address credible allegations of research misconduct fairly and confidentially.
• Arrange corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when justified.

Editors who are authors or co-authors of a submitted manuscript must not participate in its reviewer selection, editorial assessment, or final publication decision.

2.3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers contribute independent scholarly assessments that support editorial decisions and improve manuscript quality.

Reviewers must:

• Accept assignments only when they possess appropriate subject expertise.
• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
• Respect the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, and editorial correspondence.
• Disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
• Identify relevant uncited scholarship when it is necessary for an accurate evaluation.
• Avoid requesting unnecessary citations intended primarily to increase citations to themselves or particular journals.
• Report suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns confidentially to the handling editor.
• Avoid unauthorized sharing of confidential manuscripts with third parties or external AI services.
• Submit review reports within the agreed timeline or inform the editor when additional time is required.

2.4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika (UNDIKMA), as the publisher of J-LKF, supports responsible journal management, editorial independence, publication integrity, and the long-term accessibility of published work.

The publisher should support the editorial team in addressing publication ethics concerns, maintaining publication records, preserving scholarly content, and communicating with relevant institutions when necessary.

Financial arrangements, institutional interests, advertising, or publication charges must not improperly influence independent editorial decisions.

3. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy

J-LKF requires all submitted manuscripts to demonstrate originality and appropriate acknowledgment of existing scholarly sources.

Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's words, ideas, research findings, data, images, methods, or other intellectual contributions without proper acknowledgment.

3.1. Forms of Plagiarism

Unacceptable practices include, but are not limited to:

• Direct Plagiarism: Reproducing another source's text without appropriate quotation or attribution.
• Paraphrasing Plagiarism: Rewriting another author's ideas or expressions without acknowledging the source.
• Plagiarism of Ideas: Presenting another researcher's original concepts, hypotheses, interpretations, or methods as one's own.
• Data or Image Plagiarism: Using another researcher's data, figures, photographs, or illustrations without appropriate acknowledgment or permission.
• Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publication: Reusing substantial portions of previously published work without appropriate disclosure, acknowledgment, or legitimate scholarly justification.
• Inappropriate Source Attribution: Misrepresenting the origin of information or omitting important source information in a manner that conceals intellectual dependence.

3.2. Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts are subject to originality and similarity assessment during initial editorial screening.

The editorial team may use recognized similarity-checking software or other appropriate methods to identify potentially problematic overlap with previously published or publicly available content.

Similarity assessment may consider:

1. The overall pattern and extent of textual similarity.
2. Concentration of overlap with particular sources.
3. Accurate citation and quotation practices.
4. Reuse of previously published material.
5. Potential duplicate or redundant publication.
6. Unattributed use of ideas, data, images, or intellectual content.

A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism. Editors must interpret similarity results in their scholarly context, considering legitimate quotations, technical terminology, methodological descriptions, cited material, and other relevant circumstances.

3.3. Editorial Actions

When problematic similarity or suspected plagiarism is identified, the editor may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request clarification or supporting documentation from the authors.
• Request appropriate citation, rewriting, or correction when the issue is limited and remediable.
• Suspend editorial processing while concerns are assessed.
• Reject a manuscript when substantial plagiarism or serious ethical violations are established.
• Refer serious allegations to the relevant institution or competent authority when appropriate.
• Initiate post-publication assessment when plagiarism is discovered after an article is published.

4. Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy

J-LKF takes credible allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, whether they arise before publication, during peer review, or after an article has been published.

Allegations are handled fairly, confidentially, and with appropriate consideration of the available evidence and the rights of the individuals concerned.

4.1. Types of Research Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct may include:

• Fabrication: Inventing research data, observations, measurements, experiments, or findings.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, instruments, procedures, images, or data in ways that misrepresent the research.
• Plagiarism: Misappropriating the intellectual contributions of others without proper acknowledgment.
• Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially overlapping research without adequate disclosure or justification.
• Authorship Misconduct: Including inappropriate authors, excluding legitimate contributors, or providing false authorship and affiliation information.
• Peer Review Manipulation: Providing false reviewer identities, manipulating reviewer suggestions, or interfering improperly with independent evaluation.
• Citation Manipulation: Deliberately manipulating references or citations for improper scholarly or bibliometric advantage.
• Unethical Research: Conducting or reporting research without required ethical safeguards, approval, permissions, or consent.
• Publication Process Manipulation: Coordinated or fraudulent activities intended to compromise the legitimacy of submission, review, acceptance, or publication.

4.2. Reporting Allegations

Allegations may be submitted by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, or other individuals who identify a credible concern.

Reports should be directed to the journal's editorial office through its official contact channels.

A report should identify the manuscript or publication concerned, describe the suspected issue, and provide relevant supporting evidence whenever possible.

Reports submitted anonymously may also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible evidence.

4.3. Assessment and Investigation

The editorial team follows a proportionate assessment procedure appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the allegation.

1. Receipt and Recording: The editorial office records the allegation and supporting information.
2. Preliminary Assessment: The responsible editor examines whether the concern is specific, credible, and relevant to research or publication integrity.
3. Conflict of Interest Check: Editors with relevant conflicts must not handle the case. An independent editor should be appointed where necessary.
4. Author Response: Individuals concerned are normally given an appropriate opportunity to provide clarification, documentation, or explanation.
5. Independent Assessment: Additional expertise may be sought to evaluate technical, methodological, statistical, or ethical issues.
6. Institutional Referral: Serious allegations requiring a formal research misconduct investigation may be referred to the relevant research institution or competent body.
7. Editorial Resolution: The editor determines appropriate action based on the available evidence, relevant findings, and applicable policies.

The journal's editorial assessment does not replace a formal institutional investigation where such an investigation is required.

4.4. Allegations Before Publication

When credible concerns arise during manuscript processing, the editor may suspend evaluation or publication until the relevant issues have been sufficiently assessed.

Possible outcomes include clarification, correction, further review, rejection, or referral to an appropriate institution.

4.5. Allegations After Publication

Concerns affecting published articles are evaluated under the same principles of fairness, independence, and evidence-based assessment.

Depending on the findings, the editorial team may publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction notice, or another appropriate editorial statement.

The journal seeks to preserve the transparency and integrity of the scientific record throughout this process.

4.6. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

Allegations are assessed without presuming misconduct before sufficient evidence has been considered.

Confidential information is shared only with individuals or institutions whose participation is reasonably necessary for assessment or investigation.

Good-faith reporting of research integrity concerns must not be used as grounds for inappropriate retaliation.

5. Conflict of Interest Policy

J-LKF requires authors, reviewers, editors, and individuals involved in publication management to disclose relevant competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their scholarly responsibilities.

Conflicts of interest may be financial, personal, professional, institutional, or academic.

The existence of a conflict does not necessarily indicate misconduct. Transparent disclosure and appropriate management are essential for protecting independent scholarly evaluation.

5.1. Conflicts of Interest for Authors

Authors must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably affect the design, conduct, reporting, interpretation, or presentation of their research.

Relevant disclosures may include:

• Research grants or financial sponsorship.
• Employment, consultancy, advisory roles, or financial relationships.
• Intellectual property, patents, or commercial interests.
• Institutional or professional relationships relevant to the research.
• Personal relationships that may influence scholarly interpretation.

Authors must include an appropriate conflict of interest declaration in the manuscript, including a statement when no relevant conflicts are identified.

5.2. Conflicts of Interest for Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could compromise their independence.

Such circumstances may include recent or ongoing collaboration, direct academic competition, institutional relationships, personal relationships, or financial interests.

Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial assessment must decline or withdraw from the assignment.

5.3. Conflicts of Interest for Editors

Editors must not handle manuscripts when personal, professional, financial, institutional, or scholarly interests could compromise independent judgment.

Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members, close collaborators, or individuals with relevant relationships to an editor must be assigned to an appropriately independent handling editor.

Editors who are authors of a manuscript must not participate in its reviewer selection, peer review management, or publication decision.

5.4. Publisher and Institutional Interests

Institutional relationships, publication fees, sponsorship arrangements, and other financial considerations must not improperly influence editorial evaluation or publication decisions.

5.5. Disclosure and Management

Where a relevant conflict is identified, the journal may implement appropriate measures, including disclosure, reassignment of editorial responsibilities, replacement of reviewers, independent assessment, or other proportionate action.

Undisclosed conflicts discovered after publication may result in further editorial investigation or post-publication action where justified.

6. Post-Publication Discussion Policy

J-LKF recognizes scholarly publication as an ongoing process of critical inquiry, verification, interpretation, and academic discussion.

The journal welcomes constructive, evidence-based discussion concerning the research methods, findings, interpretations, and scholarly implications of published articles.

6.1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Relevant discussions may address:

• Alternative scientific interpretations of published findings.
• Questions about research design, methodology, measurements, or analyses.
• Inconsistencies in reported data, figures, or supporting evidence.
• Theoretical or methodological limitations affecting the interpretation of results.
• Clarification of important scholarly claims or research implications.
• Potential errors, omissions, or issues requiring editorial attention.

6.2. Submission of Comments and Concerns

Readers, researchers, authors, and other members of the scholarly community may submit post-publication comments or concerns through the journal's official editorial contact.

A submission should:

1. Identify the published article, including its title and DOI where available.
2. Explain the specific scientific or editorial issue being raised.
3. Provide evidence, relevant references, or supporting analysis when appropriate.
4. Use professional, respectful, and academically appropriate language.
5. Disclose relevant competing interests.

6.3. Editorial Assessment

The editorial team evaluates post-publication submissions for scholarly relevance, clarity, evidentiary support, and compliance with publication ethics.

The editor may request further clarification, consult independent experts, or invite the original authors to provide a response.

Substantive scientific comments and author responses may be considered for publication as editorial correspondence or another appropriate publication format, subject to editorial approval and any necessary scholarly assessment.

Acceptance of a comment for publication is not automatic and does not establish a separate regular manuscript category.

6.4. Moderation and Ethical Standards

Post-publication discussion must remain professional, evidence-based, and academically constructive.

Personal attacks, discriminatory statements, defamatory allegations, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, and unsupported accusations are not accepted.

The journal distinguishes legitimate scientific disagreement from allegations of misconduct. Concerns involving possible research misconduct are handled under the Research Misconduct Policy.

6.5. Possible Outcomes

Following editorial assessment, a post-publication submission may result in:

• An editorial clarification or author response.
• A scholarly exchange or correspondence.
• No further action when the concern is unsupported or adequately resolved.
• A formal correction when a verifiable error is identified.
• An expression of concern when serious unresolved questions affect the reliability of the publication.
• A retraction when the published article is determined to be seriously unreliable or otherwise warrants retraction.

Post-publication discussions are intended to improve scholarly understanding and maintain the reliability of the academic record, not to punish authors for legitimate scientific disagreement.

7. Correction, Expression of Concern, and Retraction Policy

J-LKF is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the published scholarly record.

When significant errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal takes proportionate action according to the nature, seriousness, and consequences of the issue.

Editorial actions may include corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other appropriate notices, informed by relevant COPE guidance.

7.1. Corrections

A correction may be issued when a published article contains an error or omission that requires formal clarification but does not invalidate the overall reliability of the research.

Corrections may address:

• Errors in reported numerical values, tables, or figures that do not invalidate the main conclusions.
• Incorrect or incomplete bibliographic information.
• Errors in descriptions of methods, materials, or research procedures.
• Omissions in funding, acknowledgments, or declarations.
• Verified errors in author information or contributorship.
• Other identifiable inaccuracies that can be corrected without retracting the article.

A formal correction notice should identify the original article, describe the error and the correction, and provide a clear link to the article concerned.

The terms Erratum and Corrigendum may be used when appropriate to distinguish publisher or production errors from author-related errors.

7.2. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when credible and potentially serious concerns arise regarding the reliability or integrity of a published article, but available evidence is not yet sufficient for a definitive editorial decision.

Such circumstances may include:

• An ongoing investigation involving potentially unreliable research data.
• Significant unresolved questions about research methods, evidence, or ethics.
• Inconclusive findings concerning alleged publication misconduct.
• Delays in obtaining necessary findings from a relevant research institution.

An Expression of Concern informs readers of a potentially important unresolved issue. It does not automatically establish that misconduct has occurred.

The notice should identify the original article, explain the concern appropriately, and remain linked to the publication record.

The journal may update the record following additional findings, including by publishing a correction, retraction, or appropriate resolution notice.

7.3. Retractions

A retraction may be issued when an article contains serious problems that undermine confidence in its findings, conclusions, or publication integrity.

Retraction may be warranted in circumstances including:

• Unreliable findings resulting from serious errors or research misconduct.
• Fabricated, falsified, or inappropriately manipulated research data or images.
• Substantial plagiarism or unauthorized use of intellectual content.
• Unjustified duplicate or redundant publication.
• Serious violations of applicable research ethics.
• Manipulated peer review or fraudulent publication processes.
• Other serious concerns that render the article unreliable or compromise the integrity of its publication.

Retraction decisions are made by the responsible editor, following appropriate assessment of the available evidence.

Authors should ordinarily be informed and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before a retraction decision. However, a justified retraction may proceed when authors disagree or do not cooperate.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and protect readers, not to impose punishment on the authors.

7.4. Retraction Notices

A retraction notice should:

1. Clearly identify itself as a retraction.
2. Identify the retracted article by title, authors, citation, and DOI where available.
3. Explain the reason for retraction clearly and accurately.
4. State who is issuing the retraction.
5. Be freely accessible to readers.
6. Be linked to the original article.
7. Distinguish between honest error and established misconduct where the evidence permits such distinction.

Retracted articles normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record, with their retracted status clearly indicated.

7.5. Article Removal

Complete removal of a published article is considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as compelling legal, privacy, safety, or other serious ethical requirements.

When removal is unavoidable, the journal should retain an appropriate public bibliographic record and explanatory notice to the extent permitted by applicable law.

7.6. Transparency and Metadata

Formal post-publication notices should be identifiable, dated, accessible, and linked to the affected article.

Where supported by the publishing system, the journal updates relevant article metadata, DOI-related records, and publication information to reflect the current article status.

Substantive changes to the published version of record must not be made silently or without appropriate documentation.

8. Complaints and Appeals

J-LKF accepts substantiated complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, alleged misconduct, and the integrity of published articles.

Complaints or appeals should be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

A complaint should identify the relevant manuscript, publication, or editorial decision and explain the concern with supporting information.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor assesses the matter according to its nature and the available evidence.

Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to another independent senior editor or appropriate publisher representative who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Editorial appeals are evaluated for demonstrable factual, procedural, or ethical concerns. Disagreement with a scholarly evaluation alone does not establish grounds for reversing an editorial decision.

A complaint or appeal does not automatically result in acceptance, re-review, correction, or retraction.

9. International Ethical Guidance

J-LKF develops and implements its publication ethics policies with reference to internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Relevant guidance includes:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• COPE Retraction Guidelines
• COPE Guidance and Resources

Reference to these international guidelines indicates the journal's commitment to responsible publishing practices and does not imply formal membership or endorsement by the organizations.