Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1. Introduction

The Indonesian Journal of Life Sciences (IJLS) publishes peer-reviewed research in biochemistry, cell and molecular biology, biotechnology, genetics, pharmaceutical science and pharmacology, and food science and nutrition. The journal is published by Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (LPPM), i3L University.

This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher, and the procedures for handling concerns about submitted or published work. It follows the Core Principles and Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the editors use COPE guidance and flowcharts when handling ethical cases. Authors should read it together with the Author Guidelines.

COPE's six Core Principles are accountability, fairness and equity, integrity, rigour and accuracy, stewardship, and transparency. They guide any situation not covered here.

2. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions are based on the quality of the work and its fit with the journal's scope. Advertising, reprints, publication fees, and the interests of the university or any funder do not influence them, and the publisher does not interfere in individual decisions. Information on fees, ownership and open access is on the Payment Fees, About and Open Access Policy pages.

3. Responsibilities of authors

By submitting to IJLS, authors confirm that the work is original and free from plagiarism (text, data and figures); that it has not been published before in any language and is not under consideration by another journal; and that all co-authors and any relevant authorities, such as an institution or sponsor, have approved the submission.

3.1 Reporting and data

Authors must report their work honestly and accurately. Fabrication, falsification, image manipulation and selective omission of results are research misconduct. A manuscript should give enough detail for others to repeat the work. It should follow the journal's submission guidelines and, where one exists for the study design, the relevant reporting guideline (for example ARRIVE for animal studies or CONSORT for clinical trials).

A data availability statement should be included. Raw data may be requested during review and should be kept for a reasonable time after publication. If data cannot be shared, the authors should explain why.

3.2 Originality, redundant publication and citations

Authors must cite the work of others and their own earlier publications, and place directly quoted text in quotation marks. Reusing one's own text or data without disclosure is not acceptable, and any preprint or earlier version of the manuscript should be disclosed. All submissions are screened for similarity before review (see the Plagiarism Screening page).

A manuscript must not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time, and the same research must not be published more than once, in English or in any other language. If several papers come from one project, this should be stated and the main publication cited.

References must be relevant, genuine and accurate, and authors should have read the sources they cite. Reference style follows the Author Guidelines (APA, with at least 80% primary research articles). Fabricated or unverifiable references can lead to rejection or further investigation.

3.3 Authorship

Authorship is limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study and to the writing of the paper, who approved the submitted version, and who can answer for the work. Those who contributed in lesser or purely technical ways should be named in the acknowledgements. Ghost authorship (omitting someone who qualifies) and gift or guest authorship (including someone who does not) are not acceptable. Authors are encouraged to describe each person's contribution, for example using the CRediT taxonomy.

Changes to the author list after submission (additions, removals or a different order) must be requested in writing by the corresponding author, with the reason and the written agreement of all authors affected. The editor decides, and may refer disputes to the authors' institution.

3.4 Use of AI

Authors must follow the AI policy in the Author Guidelines. In brief: AI tools cannot be authors; authors remain responsible for all content, including references; and the use of generative AI or other substantial AI tools must be disclosed in the cover letter and in a separate section of the manuscript. Confidential or unpublished information must not be entered into AI tools without proper authorisation. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI may be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

 3.5 Research ethics and consent

Studies involving people, human samples or personal data must state which ethics committee approved the work (with the approval number where available) and that informed consent was obtained. Studies involving animals must state that the work followed the relevant laws and institutional guidelines and name the approving committee. Participants' privacy must be protected. Any unusual hazards in the chemicals, procedures or equipment used must be stated in the manuscript.

3.6 Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors must disclose any financial, personal, professional or intellectual interest that could be seen as influencing the work, including employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, patents and grants. All sources of funding, and the role of the funder in the study, must be stated. Disclosure should be made at submission.

3.7 Errors in published work

Authors who find a significant error in their published work must notify the editor promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting the paper. If a third party reports an error, the authors must correct or retract the paper, or show the editor that the original is correct.

4. Responsibilities of editors

Every manuscript sent for review is assessed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. Decisions are based on the validity and importance of the work, the reviewers' comments, and legal requirements on libel, copyright and plagiarism. Editors are responsible for everything the journal publishes and for keeping procedures that protect the integrity of the published record. Editors, editorial staff and reviewers are expected to keep up to date with publication ethics, including COPE guidance and flowcharts.

Manuscripts are evaluated on merit, without regard to the authors' nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity, political views or institution. The journal works towards editorial boards and reviewer pools that reflect the research community, and towards equal opportunity for authors from all regions.

Submitted manuscripts are confidential and are shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers and potential reviewers, editorial advisers and the publisher, as needed. Editors must not enter unpublished manuscripts into public AI tools. Personal data is handled as described in the Privacy Statement.

Editors must not use unpublished information from a submission in their own research without the authors' written consent. An editor with a competitive, collaborative, financial or personal conflict regarding a manuscript hands it to another editor. Submissions from editors, board members or colleagues in their institution are handled independently of them.

Editors check that ethics approval and consent statements are present. If they are missing or in doubt, the editor requests documentation and may reject the manuscript or refer the matter to the authors' institution.

5. Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they have the necessary expertise and can meet the deadline. Otherwise they should tell the editor promptly so that another reviewer can be found.

Manuscripts and review comments are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss a manuscript without the editor's permission, or use information from it for personal advantage. They must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a public AI tool or other external service, and should ask the editor before using any AI tool to support a review.

Reviews should be objective, constructive and supported by reasons, and should focus on the work rather than the authors. Reviewers should indicate which additional analyses are essential to support the conclusions and which would only strengthen the paper, point out relevant uncited work, and give a citation for any claim that something has been reported before.

Reviewers who notice irregularities, ethical concerns, substantial similarity with other work or possible misconduct should tell the editor in confidence, and should not investigate on their own unless asked.

Reviewers must decline manuscripts where they have a competitive, collaborative, financial or personal conflict. In blinded review, a reviewer who thinks they know the authors' identity and sees a conflict should inform the editor.

6. Responsibilities of the publisher

LPPM i3L supports the editors in applying this statement. It does not interfere in individual editorial decisions, keeps commercial and advertising interests separate from them, and provides the resources, legal advice and technical systems the journal needs, including similarity screening and a secure website. It works with the editors to investigate misconduct and to publish corrections, expressions of concern and retractions. It also keeps the journal's policies, licences and web pages up to date and supports long-term preservation of the published record (see the Archiving page).

7. Concerns and allegations of misconduct

Anyone may raise a concern about a submitted or published article, an editor, a reviewer or the journal by writing to ijls@i3l.ac.id. Anonymous concerns are considered if they include enough detail to be assessed.

Concerns are handled following the relevant COPE flowchart:

1. The editorial office acknowledges the concern.
2. The editor-in-chief makes an initial assessment of whether it is credible and within the journal's remit. If it involves the editor-in-chief or an editor with a conflict, an independent editor takes over.
3. The people concerned are contacted and given a fair opportunity to respond. Reviewers, the publisher or outside experts may be consulted.
4. Where appropriate, the authors' institution or funder is informed and asked to investigate.
5. The editor decides on the outcome (no action, clarification, correction, expression of concern or retraction), and everyone involved is informed.

Every report is looked into, even if it is made years after publication. People who raise concerns in good faith are protected from retaliation, and their identity is kept confidential as far as possible. The journal aims to handle concerns within a reasonable time and keeps those involved informed of progress.

8. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

The published article is the version of record. Any change to it is made openly, with a visible notice, following COPE's retraction guidance.

- Correction: for an error that affects interpretation but not the validity of the findings.
- Expression of concern: for credible evidence of a problem where an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive.
- Retraction: for unreliable findings resulting from misconduct or honest error, for redundant publication or plagiarism, and for serious ethical problems.
- Removal: reserved for rare cases such as legal problems, defamation or content that could cause serious harm.

Notices are linked to the original article and state the reason. Retracted articles remain online, clearly marked as retracted.

9. Post-publication discussion (Complaints and appeals)

Complaints about how the journal or its staff handled a manuscript, a review or a concern can be sent to ijls@i3l.ac.id. They are reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original decision, such as another editor or the publisher.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision once, by writing to the editor-in-chief with a point-by-point explanation of why the decision should be reconsidered, together with any new evidence. The appeal is considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, with an independent expert where needed. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Complaints that remain unresolved can be sent to the publisher, LPPM i3L, at the address below.

10. Copyright, licensing and personal data

The journal acts on credible reports of plagiarism, copyright infringement or misuse of other people's material. Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), and the Copyright Notice explains what authors keep. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reuse third-party material and for declaring any rights or licences that apply to their work.

Peer review is confidential. Personal information about authors, reviewers and research participants is used only for editorial and publishing purposes, as described in the Privacy Statement.

11. Review of this statement

This statement is reviewed at least once a year, and whenever COPE updates its Code of Conduct, Core Principles or guidance.

Last updated: October 2026