Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Jumptech (Journal of Muhammadiyah’s Application Technology)

JUMPTECH upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. The Editorial Board is responsible for preventing unethical behavior. Plagiarism, fabrication/falsification of data, duplicate submission/publication, and any form of misconduct are not tolerated. By submitting to JUMPTECH, authors affirm that the manuscript is original, has not been published in any language (in whole or in part), and is not under consideration elsewhere. JUMPTECH follows COPE Core Practices and the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (see guidance at publicationethics.org).

Section A: Publication and Authorship

Peer Review Model. All submissions undergo an editorial pre-screening, followed by double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area (e.g., Irrigation Civil Engineering; Electrical Engineering & Computer Science; Architecture, Urban & Regional Planning).
Evaluation Criteria. Relevance to scope and readership, originality and contribution, methodological rigor, validity of results, clarity of presentation (including language), and ethical compliance.
Decisions. Possible editorial outcomes: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. A request to revise and resubmit does not guarantee acceptance. Rejected articles are not re-reviewed.
Legal & Ethical Requirements. Acceptance is subject to compliance with laws and standards on libel, copyright, research ethics, and plagiarism. The same research must not be published in more than one venue.
Similarity Screening. JUMPTECH uses Similarity Check (Turnitin) to evaluate textual overlap.

Authorship Criteria (ICMJE-aligned)

Authorship should be based on all four of the following:

substantial contributions to conception/design or data acquisition/analysis/interpretation; and
drafting the work or critical revision for important intellectual content; and
final approval of the version to be published; and
agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work (accuracy and integrity).

All listed authors must meet all four criteria; all who meet them should be listed as authors. Others who contributed but do not meet the criteria should be acknowledged.
The order of authors is a collective decision of the author group.
Requests to add/remove authors after submission/publication must include a written explanation and signed agreement from all listed authors and from the author being added/removed.
The corresponding author handles communication with the journal across submission, review, and post-publication queries and ensures administrative requirements (e.g., disclosures, ethics approvals) are complete. Editors are encouraged to copy key correspondence to all authors.
For large group authorship, the corresponding author must identify group members who qualify as authors and can take public responsibility for the work.

Section B: Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors must:

Certify the manuscript is original, not published elsewhere, and not under consideration elsewhere.
Participate in peer review and respond to editorial queries in a timely manner.
Provide retractions/corrections where necessary.
Ensure all listed authors made significant contributions and that all data are real and authentic.
Disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources.
Cite and acknowledge all sources of data, tools, and prior work used.
Promptly report any errors discovered post-publication to the editors and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions.

Section C: Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts as confidential and not use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Conduct objective, evidence-based reviews; avoid personal criticism; provide clear, reasoned comments with supporting arguments.
Identify relevant uncited literature and any substantial overlap with other works.
Declare conflicts of interest (competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships) and decline assignments when conflicts exist.
Adhere to the double-blind policy and avoid attempts to reveal identities.

Section D: Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors:

Have full responsibility and authority to accept/reject manuscripts, basing decisions solely on importance, originality, clarity, validity, and fit to JUMPTECH scope.
Safeguard the integrity of the academic record, publish corrections/retractions when needed, and preserve reviewer anonymity.
Consider the needs of authors and readers and maintain consistent, transparent editorial processes.
Ensure all published research conforms to international ethical guidelines.
Act on suspected misconduct (before or after publication) and pursue resolution with due diligence and appropriate evidence.
Manage and disclose editorial conflicts of interest; editors should not handle submissions in which they have conflicts.

Research Ethics

Research Involving Humans

Human studies (participants, samples, or data) must follow the Declaration of Helsinki.
Prior ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee is required. The manuscript must include the committee’s name and reference/permit number where available.
For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys) where approval is not required or is exempt by law/committee, include a clear statement and rationale. When in doubt, seek ethics guidance before conducting the study.
Use non-stigmatizing, non-discriminatory language for groups categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disability, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. Define categories and indicate if required by a funder or authority.

Consent for Research Involving Children, Adolescents, and Vulnerable Populations

Obtain written informed consent from a parent/guardian for participants unable to consent for themselves; adhere to the country’s legal age of adulthood.
If verbal consent is used, explain and justify this in the manuscript.
Consent must be voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence (consistent with the Nuremberg Code and Belmont Report).

Retrospective Studies and Database/Repository Research

Confirm ethics approval (if required) and permission from data owners/curators.
If using publicly available, openly licensed data not requiring permission, include a statement explaining the legal basis.
Keep data anonymized unless explicit written consent (including consent to publish) permits identification. Include a statement confirming consent where applicable.

Survey Studies

Inform participants of the purpose, data handling and storage, confidentiality, potential risks, and that participation is voluntary; record consent appropriately.
Obtain ethics approval prior to data collection, or provide a justification if not required by local regulations.

Covert Observational Research

Because prior consent is not feasible, obtain ethics approval and justify the covert design in the manuscript. Post-study consent should be sought when appropriate. Provide committee name(s) and reference/permit numbers. The Editor may deem such research unsuitable for the journal.

Research with Indigenous Communities

Follow specific community permissions and culturally appropriate consent processes (e.g., from community leaders/Elders).
Respect cultural sensitivities and restrictions on publishing text/images.
Consult and follow suitable ethical guidelines for research and publishing in indigenous contexts.

Additional Integrity, Data, and Transparency Expectations

Data/Code Availability. Where feasible, authors are encouraged to share datasets, code, and materials (or provide justified access statements) to support reproducibility in engineering and applied technology domains.
AI-Assisted Tools. If AI-assisted writing/analysis tools are used, authors must disclose their role and take full responsibility for content accuracy and integrity.
Corrections & Retractions. JUMPTECH follows COPE-aligned procedures for corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions.

Peer Review & Decision Communication

The handling editor invites reviewers based on expertise, fit, availability, and absence of conflicts.
Reviewers may recommend accept, minor/major revision, or reject with detailed, point-by-point feedback.
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all reviews; if reviews diverge significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited.
Decision letters include anonymous reviewer comments.
For revisions, authors must submit a marked-up manuscript (or change log) and a response to reviewers. Major revisions may be re-reviewed; minor revisions may be checked by the editor.
Upon acceptance, manuscripts proceed to copy-editing and production, then are published online open access as downloadable PDFs.