ethical guidelines

The Jurnal  Intelegensia publication ethics and publication malpractice statement  The present statement is committed to ensuring publication ethics and quality of articles intended for publication in  Intelegensia . Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers.

A. AUTHORS’ DUTIES

Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of their research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. 
Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the updated text. Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, and therefore wherever and whenever the work and/or words of others are used, all instances must be appropriately acknowledged. 
Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. 

B. EDITORS’ DUTIES 

Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should evaluate the manuscripts initially without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship etc.

Editors should address and take sufficient steps about ethical complaints to the published data and/or methodologies. Further communications should be made to the corresponding authors.

C. REVIEWERS’ DUTIES 

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any appointed reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or is otherwise aware that a prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and step down from the review process. 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.