Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Health Sciences

---

Preamble

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Health Sciences is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—must adhere to the ethical guidelines outlined in this statement. This policy is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and best practices for scholarly publishing.

Violations of publication ethics may result in rejection, retraction, or a ban on future submissions.

---

A. DUTIES OF EDITORS

1. Publication Decisions

The editor-in-chief and editorial board are responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. Decisions are based solely on:

• Scientific validity and significance of the research

• Relevance to the scope of the proceedings

• Clarity, originality, and quality of writing

• Compliance with author guidelines

Editors must not be influenced by:

• Race, gender, religion, or nationality of authors

• Institutional affiliation

• Commercial, political, or personal interests

2. Fairness and Impartiality

Editors shall evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content without discrimination. All submissions receive the same level of scrutiny regardless of the author's reputation or institutional prestige.

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff shall not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than:

• The corresponding author

• Assigned reviewers

• The publisher (if necessary)

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for an editor's own research without the author's explicit written consent.

4. Conflict of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript if they have:

• A personal or professional relationship with the authors (e.g., collaborator within the past 3 years, family member, doctoral advisor/student)

• Direct scientific competition with the authors

• Financial interests related to the work (e.g., stocks, patents, consulting fees)

Recused editors shall assign an alternative editor to oversee the review process.

5. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

If editors receive credible evidence of ethical violations (plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate submission, etc.), they shall:

1. Conduct an initial inquiry

2. Notify the corresponding author

3. Follow COPE flowcharts for resolution

4. Impose appropriate sanctions (revision, retraction, or ban)

6. Encouraging Academic Discourse

Editors shall allow authors to respond to criticisms and shall consider appeals from authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected.

---

B. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should provide feedback that is:

• Honest, constructive, and objective

• Supported by evidence and scientific reasoning

• Free from personal criticism or offensive language

2. Timeliness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a manuscript or cannot meet the deadline must immediately notify the editor so alternative reviewers can be assigned.

3. Confidentiality

Each manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers shall not:

• Share the manuscript with others without editor permission

• Discuss the manuscript with unauthorized parties

• Use information from the manuscript for personal advantage

4. Objectivity and Transparency

Reviews must be based on the manuscript's scientific merit, not on:

• Personal opinions about the authors

• The author's institution, nationality, or reputation

• Competing commercial interests

Reviewers should clearly identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers shall notify the editor if they identify:

• Substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and any published work

• Suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism

• Missing citations to relevant prior research

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have:

• A recent collaboration or publication with any author (within 3 years)

• A close personal or professional relationship with any author

• A direct financial interest in the outcome

• A competing interest (e.g., working on a similar study)

---

C. DUTIES OF AUTHORS

1. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Any use of another person's words, figures, tables, or ideas must be properly cited and quoted.

Prohibited practices include:

All submissions will be screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate). The maximum allowable similarity index is 20% (excluding references).

2. Data Fabrication and Falsification

• Fabrication – Making up data or results and recording or reporting them

• Falsification – Manipulating research materials, images, equipment, or processes, or changing/omitting data without justification

Both practices are strictly prohibited and will result in immediate rejection and reporting to the author's institution.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission

An author shall not:

• Submit the same manuscript to more than one journal or conference simultaneously

• Publish a manuscript that substantially overlaps with a previously published work (including translations)

• Split a single study into multiple "least publishable units" (salami slicing)

Violations will result in rejection from all involved venues and notification to the authors' institutions.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must properly cite all sources that have significantly influenced the research or manuscript. This includes:

• Prior publications

• Unpublished datasets

• Personal communications (with permission)

• Conference presentations

5. Authorship and Contributorship

Criteria for authorship (based on ICMJE recommendations):

All authors must meet all four criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation

2. Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content

3. Final approval of the version to be published

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

What is NOT authorship:

• Acquiring funding alone

• General supervision of a research group

• Providing administrative support

• Technical editing or proofreading

Corresponding author: One author (or co-authors) shall act as the primary contact, handling all communication with the journal and managing co-author coordination.

Changes to authorship: Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be accompanied by a signed statement from all authors agreeing to the change.

6. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work, including:

• Employment, consultancies, or stock ownership in companies that could benefit from the research

• Patents or patent applications (pending or issued)

• Research grants or donations from funding organizations

• Personal relationships or rivalries

If no conflict exists, authors should state: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."

7. Acknowledgment of Funding

Authors must clearly acknowledge all sources of financial support for the research, including grant numbers and funding agency names.

8. Fundamental Errors in Published Work

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they must:

• Immediately notify the editor

• Cooperate with the editor to issue a correction, retraction, or erratum

• Provide a clear explanation of the error

9. Human and Animal Subjects Research

For research involving human participants or animals, authors must include a statement that:

• The study obtained approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB)

• Informed consent was obtained from all human participants (or their legal guardians)

• The study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (for human research) or ARRIVE guidelines (for animal research)

Example statement:
*"This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of XYZ University (Approval No. 123/EC/2025). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants."*

10. Use of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

Authors must disclose any use of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL) in:

• Manuscript writing (e.g., language polishing, translation)

• Data analysis or figure generation

• Literature review or citation management

Prohibited uses:

• Listing AI tools as co-authors (AI cannot be an author)

• Using AI to generate key scientific conclusions or fake data

Disclosure statement example:
"The authors used [tool name] for language editing purposes only. All scientific content, analysis, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors."

---

D. DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER

1. Handling Unethical Behavior

The publisher (conference organizer) shall investigate any allegations of unethical behavior, even if discovered years after publication. The publisher shall cooperate fully with editors in such investigations.

2. Accessibility and Archiving

The publisher shall ensure permanent open access to all published content and maintain long-term digital archiving (e.g., Zenodo, Internet Archive, or national libraries).

3. Correction and Retraction Policies

The publisher shall support editors in issuing:

• Corrections – For minor errors that do not affect conclusions

• Errata – For publisher-caused errors

• Retractions – For major errors, plagiarism, or ethical violations

Retractions shall be clearly marked and linked to the original article.

---

E. MISCONDUCT AND SANCTIONS

1. Types of Misconduct

2. Investigation Process

1. Complaint received – From editor, reviewer, reader, or whistleblower

2. Initial assessment – Editor evaluates credibility of evidence

3. Notification – Corresponding author informed of allegation

4. Investigation – Editor may request explanation, data, or raw files

5. Decision – Based on evidence and COPE guidelines

3. Sanctions

Depending on the severity and intent of the violation, sanctions may include:

---

F. APPEALS PROCESS

Authors who disagree with a rejection or sanction may appeal by:

1. Submitting a formal appeal letter to the editor-in-chief within 14 days of the decision

2. Providing clear, point-by-point responses to the original decision

3. Including any new evidence or arguments

Appeals will be reviewed by a separate editor who was not involved in the original decision. The appeal decision is final.

---

G. REPORTING MISCONDUCT

Readers or reviewers who suspect ethical violations should report them to:

Editor-in-Chief
Email: conference@itekesmukalbar.ac.id

All reports will be treated confidentially. Whistleblowers will be protected from retaliation.

---

H. COMPLIANCE WITH COPE

This publication ethics statement follows the guidelines and flowcharts provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For more information, visit: https://publicationethics.org

---

I. POLICY REVIEW

This policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board. The current version is effective as of:

Date of last revision: April 8, 2026