Publication Ethics

Image results for publication ethics committee on logo

Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including the Author, the Chief Editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewed, and the publisher (Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis, Universitas Negeri Surabaya). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management is critical in developing a coherent and reputable knowledge network. It shows the authors' work caliber and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. As a result, it is critical to agree on ethical norms for all parties engaged in publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society. 

The publisher of the Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in the production, performance, or review of research, authoring an article by authors, or publishing research results is considered research misconduct. Editors are responsible for safeguarding the truth and integrity of the scientific record when authors are proven to be involved in research misconduct or other major irregularities regarding articles published in scientific journals.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.

The first stage is to determine the claim's validity and whether it is consistent with the criteria of research misconduct. This preliminary phase also examines whether the individuals accused of misbehaviour have relevant conflicts of interest.

Assume that scientific malfeasance or other significant research anomalies are possible. In that instance, the allegations are forwarded to the corresponding Author, who is asked to respond in detail on behalf of all co-authors. Additional review and engagement of specialists (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained after receipt and evaluation of the response.

Institutions are expected to undertake thorough and appropriate investigations into complaints of scientific misconduct. Finally, authors, journals, and institutions bear a significant responsibility to safeguard the accuracy of the scientific record. Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management will continue to fulfil its responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record by responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions.

Publication Decisions

The Editor Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management oversees determining which papers should be published in the journal. Such decisions must always be driven by the validation of the work in question and its value to academics and readers. The editors may be led by the editorial board's policies and bound by the legal requirements in effect at the time addressing libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In reaching this judgment, the editors may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Complaints and Appeals

Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management journal will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person for the case of the complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines. The complaint cases should be sent by email to  

Fair Play

An editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content at any time without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political phi.


The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding Author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.



1. Decisions Publications

JDIM (Journal of Digital Business and Innovation Management) Editor is responsible for deciding which articles will be published on the articles received. This decision was based on the validation of an article and the article contributions for researchers and readers. In doing so, Editor guided by the policy of the editorial board and is subject to the laws need to be enforced as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can discuss with other editors or reviewers in making the decision.

2.      Assessment Objective 

Editor conduct an evaluation of a script based on the intellectual content without discrimination of religion, ethnicity, race, gender, race, and others.

3.      Confidentiality 

Editors and editorial staff can not disclose any information about the manuscript that has been accepted to anyone, other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the editorial board.

4.      Conflicts of Interest 

The material sent to the accrual article has not been published and may not be used for personal research include the editor without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through a  double blind review  must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors should refuse to review the manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest, which is due to the competitive relationship, collaborative, or other relationships with the author, company, or institution related to the manuscript.

5.      Cooperation in the Investigation 

Editors must take responsive measures if there are complaints related to ethics on a manuscript that has been received or the articles that have been published. Editors can contact the author of the script and give due consideration to the complaint. Editors can also communicate more to institutions or agencies related research. When the complaint has been resolved, matters such as the publication of a correction, withdrawal, expression of concern, or other records, should be considered to be done.



1. Contributions to the Decision Editor

Blind peer review  by the reviewer assist editors in making decisions and can assist the author in improving writing through editorial communication between the reviewer with the author. Peer review  is an important component in the formal scientific communication ( formal scholarly communication ) and a scientific approach.  

2.      Timeliness 

If the reviewer is assigned feel qualified to conduct a review of a manuscript or knows that it is impossible to conduct a review in a timely manner, the reviewer assigned must immediately notify the editor.

3.      Confidentiality 

Each manuscript has been accepted for review must be treated as confidential documents. Tesebut manuscript should not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

4.      Objective 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Critics of a personal nature on the author is not appropriate. Reviewers should be clearly expressed his views along with the arguments in favor.

5.      Completeness and Authenticity References 

Reviewers should identify works of publications that have not been cited by the author. A statement of observations or arguments previously published should be accompanied by relevant quotes. Reviewers must notify the editor on substantial similarity or  overlap  between the manuscript was in-review with other writings that have been published, in accordance with the knowledge reviewer.

6.      Conflicts of Interest 

Articles unpublished material should not be used in personal research reviewer without including the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through  peer review  must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should reject the manuscript review if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, which is due to the competitive relationship, collaborative, or other relationships with the author, company, or institution related to the work.



1.      Standard Writing 

Authors must present papers / articles are accurate to the research conducted as well as presenting an objective discussion on the significance of the research. The research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article should be sufficiently detailed with adequate reference to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or inaccurate presentation of papers that constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2.      Data Access Research 

Authors may be asked to provide raw data on paper to be reviewed and should be able to provide public access to such data if possible, and should be able to store the data in a reasonable period of time after publication.

3.      Originality and Plagiarism 

Plagiarism in all forms constitute unethical behavior in the publication of scientific works and unacceptable. Authors must ensure that all work presented an original work, and if the authors have used the work and / or words of others, the writer must present the appropriate citations. There are various forms of plagiarism, as acknowledging the writings of others into writing your own, copy or rewrite substantial parts of the works of others without citing sources, as well as claiming the results of research conducted by others. Self-Plagiarism or bibs plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is cite or sentences of his own works were published without citing sources.

4.      Terms of Delivery Posts 

The author may not publish the same script on more than one journal. Asking the same script on more than one journal is a publication of unethical behavior in scientific papers and unacceptable.

5.      Inclusion Reference Source 

Recognition correctly on the work of others must always be done. Authors must mention influential publications in the preparation of his work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, may not be used or reported without written permission from the source of the information.

6.      Authorship 

The author is a person who has contributed sigifikan to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the writing in the article. All the parties who have made significant contributions listed as  co-author . Authors of correspondence should ensure that all  co-authors  have included in the script, and all the  co-authors  have read and approved the final version of the work, and has approved the submission of the manuscript for publication.

7.      Error in writing Posted 

When the authors found a significant error or inaccuracy in his work have been published, the author is responsible to promptly notify the journal editor, as well as working with the editor to retract or correct the text. If the editor to obtain information from third parties that a work containing kesalahaan significant publication, the author bears responsibility to immediately withdraw or make corrections to the text editor or give evidence related to the accuracy of the original writings.