PUBLICATION ETHICS

The Journal of Urban Sociology (JUS) is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the publication process (the publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors) are expected to adhere to the guidelines and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing issued jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Suspected misconduct is handled in accordance with COPE guidance and flowcharts.

1. Duties of the Publisher

  1. The Sociology Laboratory, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya, as publisher, guarantees the editorial independence of JUS. Commercial or institutional interests have no influence on editorial decisions.
  2. The publisher supports the editors in handling ethical complaints, ensures the permanent availability and preservation of published content, and publishes corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

2. Duties of Editors

  1. Publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published. Decisions are based on the manuscript's originality, validity, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope, and are informed by the reviewers' evaluations and the requirements of law regarding defamation, copyright, and plagiarism.
  2. Fair play. Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual content, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy.
  3. Confidentiality. Editors do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate.
  4. Conflicts of interest. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's written consent. Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the authors or institutions. Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members are handled by another editor and undergo the same double-blind review process.
  5. Ethical oversight. Editors take reasonable measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted or published manuscript, following COPE flowcharts.

3. Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review assists editors in making decisions and, through communication with authors, helps them improve their manuscripts. JUS applies double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers.
  2. Promptness. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review on time, should notify the editor promptly and withdraw.
  3. Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others, or uploaded to generative AI tools, without the editor's authorization.
  4. Standards of objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate, and reviewers should support their views with clear arguments.
  5. Acknowledgment of sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited and inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap with other published work they are aware of.
  6. Conflicts of interest. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

4. Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting standards. Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately, and the methods described in sufficient detail to permit replication or critical assessment. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior.
  2. Data access and retention. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study for editorial review and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  3. Originality and plagiarism. Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and that the work and words of others are appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable.
  4. Multiple or concurrent publication. Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time or publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal.
  5. Acknowledgment of sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given, including publications that influenced the reported work.
  6. Authorship. Authorship is limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. Author contributions are stated using the CRediT taxonomy. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have approved the final version and agreed to its submission. Changes in authorship after submission require written consent from all authors.
  7. Research involving human participants. Research involving human participants must comply with institutional and national ethical standards. Authors must state the ethics approval obtained (committee name and approval number, where applicable), confirm that informed consent was obtained, and protect participants' privacy by anonymizing informants. Identifiable personal information, photographs, or quotations may be published only with the participants' written consent.
  8. Conflicts of interest and funding. Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their work, and all sources of funding.
  9. Use of generative AI. Generative AI tools may be used only to support language editing and must be declared in the manuscript, stating the tool and its purpose. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, may not be used to fabricate data, citations, or analysis, and authors remain fully responsible for the content of their work.
  10. Fundamental errors in published works. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the editor and cooperate in correcting or retracting the paper.

5. Plagiarism Policy

All submitted manuscripts are checked for similarity using Turnitin before peer review. The similarity index must not exceed 15%, excluding the reference list. Manuscripts that exceed this limit are returned to the authors for revision or rejected. Plagiarism detected after publication will lead to retraction of the article in accordance with COPE guidelines.

6. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct (including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, authorship disputes, and undisclosed conflicts of interest) are investigated confidentially by the editors in accordance with COPE flowcharts. The authors are given the opportunity to respond. Depending on the outcome, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction, issue an expression of concern, retract the article, and/or notify the authors' institution.

7. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

  • Corrections (errata) are published when an error that does not invalidate the findings is identified.
  • Expressions of concern may be issued while an investigation is ongoing or when evidence is inconclusive.
  • Retractions are published when findings are unreliable due to misconduct or major error, or in cases of plagiarism or redundant publication. Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked "Retracted," linked to a retraction notice that states the reason, and the DOI metadata are updated accordingly.

8. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by sending a reasoned letter to the Editor-in-Chief at urbansociology@uwks.ac.id. Appeals are evaluated by an editor not involved in the original decision and may involve additional reviewers. Complaints about the journal's policies, procedures, or the conduct of editorial staff are handled in the same manner. The decision on an appeal is final.

9. Open Access and Copyright

JUS provides immediate open access to all content. Authors retain copyright, and articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). See the Copyright and License page for details.