Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Yurispruden is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the publishing process of this journal—namely Publisher, Editors, Peer Reviewers, and Authors—are required to adhere to the ethical guidelines that refer to international standards and guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Forms of Plagiarism (Plagiarism & Text Recycling)

Plagiarism is the act of taking another person's ideas, writings, data, or work (or the author's own previously published work) and presenting them as new work without providing proper and clear attribution or acknowledgement. Based on COPE standards, plagiarism is classified into the following forms:

Literal / Direct Plagiarism (Verbatim Copying)

Copying legal texts, normative arguments, or legal doctrines word-for-word from other sources without using quotation marks ("...") and without citing the original source.

Paraphrasing Plagiarism (Unattributed Paraphrasing)

Changing the wording or sentence structure of legal analysis from other sources while retaining the core idea without providing a clear reference.

Data and Image Plagiarism

Taking analytical tables, court decision graphs, legal schematics, or visual images from someone else's publication without official permission or without listing the original source.

Plagiarism of Ideas (Misappropriation of Intellectual Property)

Taking someone else's unique legal hypothesis, methodology, or argument structure obtained from an unpublished draft (e.g., when acting as a peer reviewer) and claiming it as a personal idea.

Text Recycling / Self-Plagiarism

The act of copying a significant portion of previously published text, analysis results, or research formulations into a new article without transparency or adequate citation.

Relevant COPE References:

  • COPE Discussion Document on Plagiarism
  • COPE Flowcharts - Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

2. Other Research Misconduct

In addition to plagiarism, the scientific integrity standards of Yurispruden strictly prohibit the following severe violations, adopting standard COPE terminology:

Data Fabrication

Making up data from court decisions, interview results, or field notes that never actually existed or were never conducted, and reporting them as if real.

Data Falsification

Manipulating research materials, legal documents, or altering/omitting data (cherry-picking) so that research results are not accurately represented.

Redundant / Duplicate Publication

Publishing an article that has significant overlapping substance with a previously published article without proper disclosure or authorization.

Duplicate Submission

Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to two or more different journals for publication.

Peer Review Manipulation (Fake Reviewers)

Actions that undermine the objectivity of peer review, such as recommending fake reviewers with false email addresses or sabotaging the review process.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest (COI)

Failure to declare financial, commercial, or institutional relationships that could bias objectivity.

Ethical Approval Violations

Conducting empirical research involving human subjects without valid ethical clearance or informed consent.

Relevant COPE References:

  • COPE Flowcharts - Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
  • COPE Flowcharts - Redundant publication in a submitted manuscript
  • COPE Guidelines on Systematic Manipulation of the Peer Review Process

3. Allegations of Misconduct, Investigation, and Corrective Criteria

Referring to the COPE flowcharts, the handling of suspected violations follows standard stages and follow-up criteria:

Desk Rejection by Editor

If indications of severe violations are detected upon submission via Turnitin screening (maximum similarity threshold of 20%) or initial audit, editors reserve the right to perform a desk rejection without proceeding to peer review.

Whistleblower Protection

The journal protects the confidentiality of the identity of individuals reporting suspected violations (whistleblowers).

Response and Clarification

The editor sends an official notification to the corresponding author requesting a written response regarding the findings of suspected violations.

Corrective Action and Sanction Criteria

Based on COPE investigation results, the journal enforces the following criteria:

  • Corrigendum / Erratum (Correction): Published based on minor or administrative error criteria that do not affect the main substance of the research findings.
  • Expression of Concern: Published when there is strong indication of violation but institutional investigation results are inconclusive or evidence is not yet definitive.
  • Retraction: Imposed based on fatal violation criteria that damage scientific integrity (such as massive data fabrication/falsification, severe plagiarism, or duplicate publication).
  • Institutional Actions: Official notification to the author's affiliated institution/research funder as well as enforcement of manuscript submission bans (blacklisting).

(Note: Detailed technical operational procedures for implementation are regulated specifically in a separate Correction and Retraction Policy page).

Relevant COPE References:

  • COPE Retraction Guidelines
  • COPE Flowcharts - Responding to whistleblowers

4. Duties of Publication

A. Publisher's Duties

  • Editorial Independence: The publisher of Yurispruden guarantees the independence of the Editorial Board in making publication decisions without commercial interference.
  • Support for Ethics Investigations: The publisher facilitates resources and the enforcement of sanctions or retractions in accordance with COPE standards.
  • Copyright & Open Access Management: The publisher ensures clarity of copyright licenses and long-term digital archiving.

Relevant COPE References: COPE Guidelines - Publisher's Role in Ethics Cases

B. Editors' Duties

  • Publication Decisions: Fully responsible for deciding the suitability of a manuscript based on scientific validity and the journal's scope.
  • Fair Play & Objectivity: Evaluating manuscripts without discrimination based on the author's background.
  • Confidentiality: Maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscript data.
  • Handling Conflicts of Interest & Ethics: Recusing oneself from the review process in case of conflicts of interest and actively investigating suspected misconduct using COPE flowcharts.

Relevant COPE References: COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors

C. Peer Reviewers' Duties

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Assisting editors in improving manuscript quality through objective reviews.
  • Confidentiality: Treating manuscripts received for review as confidential documents.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Providing substantive criticism without personal bias.
  • Duty to Flag Suspected Misconduct: Obligated to notify the editor immediately upon finding indications or suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or duplicate publication during the peer review process. Verification and further investigation of these findings remain entirely under the authority of the editors using COPE guidelines.

Relevant COPE References: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

D. Authors' Duties

  • Reporting Standards: Presenting accurate and objective accounts of the conducted research.
  • Originality & Plagiarism Avoidance: Guaranteeing that submitted works are completely original and free from plagiarism and unattributed text recycling.
  • Duplicate Submission Prohibition: Refraining from submitting the same manuscript to other journals simultaneously.
  • Authorship Criteria: Limiting authorship status strictly to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript drafting (in alignment with ICMJE/COPE standards).
  • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Disclosing potential conflicts of interest and research funding sources.
  • Notification of Fundamental Errors: Obligated to immediately notify the editor if fundamental errors or inaccuracies are discovered in submitted or published manuscripts.

Relevant COPE References: COPE Guidelines on Authorship and Contribution

Authorship and Contribution

Authorship is related to who can be referred to as an author, which is limited to individuals or groups who have substantial intellectual contributions, referring to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) plays an important role in Conceptualization (ideas), Methodology (design), Software (programming), Validation (reproducibility), Formal Analysis (data analysis), Investigation (conducting research), Resources (study materials/samples), Data Curation (managing data), Writing – Original Draft (initial drafting), Writing – Review & Editing (critical review), Visualization (data presentation), Supervision (leadership/mentorship), Project administration (coordination), and Funding acquisition (obtaining financial support), as well as being willing to take responsibility for all manuscripts, including being willing to respond to investigations if there are allegations of ethical irregularities and data errors.

Operationally, authors must make significant contributions to ideas, design, data acquisition, and/or analysis, draft manuscripts and/or make critical revisions that are substantially intellectual, agree to full responsibility for the overall integrity of the manuscript content, and all authors give final approval to the version of the manuscript to be published.

Prohibited authorship practices (Authorship Malpractices), namely Ghost Authorship/Ghostwriter (hiding the names of individuals who have significant contributions), Gifts/Guest Authors (adding the names of senior or influential figures because they did not make intellectual contributions to the manuscript), and Honorary Authorship (including the names of others solely because of family, work and/or social relationships).

AI is not recognized as an author because it lacks the legal capacity to be responsible.