Publication Ethic

1. Stakeholder Duties and Responsibilities

Role & Stakeholder	Ethical Standards & Mandates
1. Duties of Authors	Originality and Plagiarism Prevention: Authors must guarantee that submitted manuscripts are entirely original works. Any ideas, words, or empirical data from other publications must be appropriately quoted and cited. Reporting Standards & Data Access: Authors must present an accurate, transparent, and objective account of the research conducted, supported by verifiable primary data. Fabricated or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unacceptable ethical breaches. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission: Submitting identical or essentially identical manuscripts to more than one journal simultaneously is strictly prohibited under COPE guidelines. Authorship Accountability: Authorship must be limited to contributors who made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, study design, execution, data collection, or critical drafting. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript prior to submission. Disclosure of Conflicts: Authors must declare any financial, commercial, or institutional conflicts of interest in their manuscript and explicitly acknowledge all funding bodies.
2. Duties of Editors	Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief and handling Section Editors maintain independent authority to decide which manuscripts proceed to peer review and publication, based strictly on scientific merit, originality, scope relevance, and legal/ethical compliance. Fairness and Impartiality: Submissions are evaluated solely for their scholarly quality, without discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, religious conviction, or political ideology. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial assistants must maintain absolute confidentiality regarding unpublished manuscripts, never sharing materials with anyone other than authorized reviewers and editorial board members. Recusal from Conflicts: Editors must recuse themselves from managing any submissions where they have personal, professional, or financial ties with authors or affiliated institutions.
3. Duties of Reviewers	Contribution to Editorial Judgments: Reviewers provide unbiased, constructive, and rigorous scientific evaluations to help editors reach objective decisions and assist authors in improving manuscript quality. Promptness & Availability: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic or cannot complete the evaluation within the designated timeframe must promptly decline the invitation to prevent editorial delays. Strict Confidentiality: Manuscripts sent for peer evaluation are privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers must not retain, share, or utilize unpublished information or findings for personal advantage. Objectivity & Attribution: Reviews must be conducted objectively without ad hominem attacks. Reviewers should identify relevant uncited published literature and alert the editor to substantial similarities with known works.

Role & Stakeholder

Ethical Standards & Mandates

1. Duties of Authors

Originality and Plagiarism Prevention: Authors must guarantee that submitted manuscripts are entirely original works. Any ideas, words, or empirical data from other publications must be appropriately quoted and cited.

Reporting Standards & Data Access: Authors must present an accurate, transparent, and objective account of the research conducted, supported by verifiable primary data. Fabricated or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unacceptable ethical breaches.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission: Submitting identical or essentially identical manuscripts to more than one journal simultaneously is strictly prohibited under COPE guidelines.

Authorship Accountability: Authorship must be limited to contributors who made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, study design, execution, data collection, or critical drafting. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript prior to submission.

Disclosure of Conflicts: Authors must declare any financial, commercial, or institutional conflicts of interest in their manuscript and explicitly acknowledge all funding bodies.

2. Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief and handling Section Editors maintain independent authority to decide which manuscripts proceed to peer review and publication, based strictly on scientific merit, originality, scope relevance, and legal/ethical compliance.

Fairness and Impartiality: Submissions are evaluated solely for their scholarly quality, without discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, religious conviction, or political ideology.

Confidentiality: Editors and editorial assistants must maintain absolute confidentiality regarding unpublished manuscripts, never sharing materials with anyone other than authorized reviewers and editorial board members.

Recusal from Conflicts: Editors must recuse themselves from managing any submissions where they have personal, professional, or financial ties with authors or affiliated institutions.

3. Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Judgments: Reviewers provide unbiased, constructive, and rigorous scientific evaluations to help editors reach objective decisions and assist authors in improving manuscript quality.

Promptness & Availability: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic or cannot complete the evaluation within the designated timeframe must promptly decline the invitation to prevent editorial delays.

Strict Confidentiality: Manuscripts sent for peer evaluation are privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers must not retain, share, or utilize unpublished information or findings for personal advantage.

Objectivity & Attribution: Reviews must be conducted objectively without ad hominem attacks. Reviewers should identify relevant uncited published literature and alert the editor to substantial similarities with known works.

2. Plagiarism Screening Policy

Jurnal Bali Membangun Bali applies a zero-tolerance policy regarding intentional plagiarism, text recycling (self-plagiarism), and deceptive paraphrasing. All submitted manuscripts are screened prior to peer review using Turnitin similarity detection software.

Overall Similarity Threshold: The maximum allowable similarity score is below 15% (with bibliography and quoted text excluded).
Single-Source Limit: The similarity match from any single external publication must not exceed 3%.
Handling High Similarity: Manuscripts exhibiting an overall index between 16% and 25% will be returned to authors for mandatory rephrasing before proceeding. Submissions exceeding 25% similarity or indicating verbatim copy-paste will be desk rejected outright.

3. Conflict of Interest / Competing Interests

To protect scholarly objectivity, transparent disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is required from all participants in the publication workflow:

Authors: Must declare all financial relationships (grants, consulting fees, honoraria) and non-financial ties (academic rivalries, personal associations) in a dedicated Declaration of Competing Interest statement before references. If none exist, state: "The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper."
Reviewers: Must decline invitations if they have recent co-authorship (within 3 years), close collaborative associations, direct supervisor-subordinate relationships, or financial stakes in the submitted manuscript.
Editors: Must recuse themselves from processing manuscripts authored by themselves or institutional colleagues. In such cases, handling responsibility is assigned to an independent associate or guest editor.

4. Allegations of Research Misconduct

The Editorial Board acts decisively upon allegations of research misconduct at all stages—pre-publication, during peer review, or post-publication. Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Data Fabrication: Inventing, fabricating, or synthesizing fraudulent data, records, or survey responses.
Data Falsification: Selectively manipulating, omitting, or altering raw data, images, or figures to distort study conclusions.
Authorship Malpractice: Enforcing ghost, guest, or gift authorships, or excluding contributors who met recognized authorship criteria.
Citation Manipulation: Inappropriate, non-contextual citation clustering designed to artificially inflate author or journal citation metrics.

When suspicions or allegations are submitted by reviewers, whistleblowers, or readers, the Editor-in-Chief coordinates an impartial investigation following the official COPE Flowcharts. Confirmed infractions result in immediate rejection, institutional reporting, and potential submission bans.

5. Post-Publication Discussions

Jurnal Bali Membangun Bali encourages academic debate and critical post-publication scholarly dialogue:

Readers may submit scientific commentaries, questions, or critiques regarding published articles by sending a formal Letter to the Editor.
Upon editorial evaluation, valid critiques will be forwarded to the corresponding author of the original article to provide an opportunity for a formal scientific rebuttal.
Constructive critiques alongside author clarifications may be published in subsequent journal issues under the Scholarly Correspondence section.

6. Corrections, Retractions, & Expression of Concern

The journal is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. If honest mistakes or ethical infractions are confirmed in published works, JBMB issues formal notices in accordance with COPE Guidelines:

Erratum / Corrigendum	Issued when an honest, significant error (such as mathematical, chemical, spelling, or author typographical error) occurs that does not invalidate the study's overall scientific conclusions. The original article remains online, linked to the correction note.
Expression of Concern	Issued by the Editor-in-Chief when an inquiry into potential research misconduct is ongoing or inconclusive, advising the scientific community to evaluate findings with caution.
Formal Retraction	Executed if findings are proven unreliable due to deliberate misconduct (data fabrication, falsification), pervasive plagiarism, or severe research breaches. Retracted articles are not physically deleted from OJS; instead, a prominent red "RETRACTED" watermark is applied across each page of the published PDF to maintain the historical record.

Publication Ethic