Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

Commitment to Ethical Publishing

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning collaborates with the Digital Society Lab (University of Belgrade), PVKTII (Indonesian Vocational and Technical Education Association for Information Technology), and Sagamedia Teknologi Nusantara as its publisher. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethical publishing and academic integrity, in line with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) Regulation No. 5 of 2014 on the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications. These ethical frameworks ensure transparency, accountability, and scholarly excellence across all aspects of the editorial and publishing process.

In addition, J-HyTEL complies with relevant Indonesian laws, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta (Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright) protects authors' intellectual property and ensures the proper attribution of scientific work. This law governs authors' rights and protects against plagiarism, ensuring that authors receive due credit for their work and that all copyrighted materials are used appropriately.

Ethical Guidelines

  1. Plagiarism and Originality: Manuscripts must be original and plagiarism-free, and all sources must be cited properly. Plagiarism checks are conducted using Turnitin.
  2. Peer Review Process: To ensure unbiased evaluations, all submissions undergo a double-anonymized peer review process. At least two experts review each manuscript.
  3. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the integrity of their work.

Authors

Contributions and Authorship Order

  • All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the manuscript, and authorship must accurately reflect individual contributions.

  • Authors are required to specify their contributions using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) guidelines to ensure accurate representation of their involvement in the research (Allen, O’Connell, & Kiermer, 2019). Further details on these roles and reporting can be found in the Journal’s Template.

  • The journal accepts a maximum of six authors per manuscript unless justified by the nature of the work. Authors must agree on the authorship order before submission, and changes to authorship are not allowed after acceptance unless approved by all authors and the editor.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The Corresponding Author (CA) is responsible for:

  • Coordinating with the editorial team and ensuring timely communication between authors.
  • Ensuring accurate metadata (e.g., author names, affiliations, and contributions).
  • Reviewing the final proof for accuracy before publication.

Declaration of the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in Scientific Writing

Purpose: This policy aims to ensure transparency and provide guidance regarding the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors. It specifically addresses the writing aspect of manuscripts and does not pertain to using AI tools for data analysis or insight generation in research.

Permitted Use of AI:  While generative AI tools and AI-assisted technologies may enhance the readability, structure, and language of a manuscript, they must not replace critical intellectual contributions such as content creation, research design, or data analysis. Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-generated content is used only to improve clarity, accuracy, and the academic tone of the manuscript. The authors must carry out the core intellectual work—formulating research questions, designing experiments, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions.

Clarification on AI Content Creation:

AI tools can support authors in tasks like:

  • Enhancing readability and academic tone
  • Correcting grammatical structures and punctuation
  • Improving sentence clarity and flow

However, AI-generated content should not be used to generate new research ideas, design experiments, interpret data, or write substantial portions of the manuscript. The authors must independently craft these aspects of the manuscript, ensuring that the intellectual integrity and originality of the research remain intact.

Disclosure Requirement:

Authors must disclose the use of AI tools in the preparation of their manuscripts. This includes specifying the AI tools used and their role in the manuscript’s development. Examples of disclosure are provided below:

“During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [TOOL/SOFTWARE] to assist in improving the readability, language, and overall structure of the manuscript. Following the use of this tool, the author(s) thoroughly reviewed and edited the content, ensuring its accuracy and integrity. The author(s) take full responsibility for the content and conclusions presented in the published article.”

“The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) to refine our work’s academic language and accuracy. On 6 December 2024, the authors submitted several paragraphs with the instructions to “Improve the academic tone and accuracy of language, including grammatical structures, punctuation, and vocabulary” and “Please check the English grammar and make corrections where possible to improve the readability of the text.” The output (here) was then modified further to better represent our tone and style of writing. The editorial team has approved this acknowledgment of this journal.”

Prohibited Practices:

  • Authorship Attribution: AI tools or AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship entails responsibilities and tasks that only humans can perform.
  • Citation of AI as Authors: AI-generated content cannot be cited as authors. AI tools, including large language models, do not possess the capability to conceptualize research designs, ensure academic integrity, or validate the originality and validity of research.
  • Generative AI Images: The use of AI tools to create or alter images is prohibited unless the images are legally acquired through agencies with contractual agreements with the journal or are directly relevant to articles discussing AI technology. If AI tools are used to generate or modify images, these images must be clearly labeled as ‘Generated by AI’ and comply with copyright law. Authors are responsible for ensuring that AI-generated images do not infringe on any third-party rights.

In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ’s position statement on AI tools (2023) and Elsevier’s policy on AI usage (2023), AI tools should only be used responsibly and always under human supervision. Authors retain full responsibility and accountability for the content and conclusions of their work, ensuring that AI-generated content does not compromise the manuscript’s integrity or originality.

Responsibilities of Authors:

  • Human Oversight: Authors must carefully review and edit all AI-generated content to correct any inaccuracies, omissions, or biases.
  • Ethical Compliance: Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original, all sources are properly cited, and that AI does not infringe on third-party rights.
  • Familiarization with Policies: Before submitting, authors should familiarize themselves with the journal’s policies, including the Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy, and Withdrawal, Retraction, and Correction Policy.

Plagiarism and Data Integrity

Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited. Authors must ensure that the submitted manuscript is original and has not been previously published. Plagiarism includes verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, and the use of images, graphs, or figures without permission. All sources must be cited appropriately.

Data integrity is equally important. Data must be accurate, verifiable, and reflect the research results. Falsified data, whether invented or manipulated, is not allowed. Authors found guilty of plagiarism or data fabrication will face consequences in line with COPE guidelines. For further details, refer to our complete Plagiarism Policy. Authors must retain raw data and be prepared to provide it upon request by the editorial board.

J-HyTEL uses the COPE guidelines to investigate suspected plagiarism. The following procedures will be followed for suspected plagiarism:

  • Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript here
  • Suspected plagiarism in a published article here

Data Availability Statement

The Data Availability Statement should specify where the data supporting the findings can be accessed. If data cannot be shared, an appropriate explanation must be provided. If the data are in a repository, include links and identifiers. Clearly state any data-sharing restrictions, such as for privacy concerns.

Research Involving Humans

Experimental research involving humans must have approval from the relevant ethics committee and adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Authors must confirm ethical approval before conducting research, and the ethics committee approval number must be included in the manuscript.

Participants in the study must be protected from identification. Authors are responsible for anonymizing or processing personally identifiable information (e.g., names, clinical images, videos, personal data, and health information) to prevent identification.

Informed Consent

Authors must obtain written informed consent from participants for clinical data or images involving human subjects. The editorial team must receive a copy of this consent before reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewers

Review Process

All manuscript submissions undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and a plagiarism check using Turnitin. Manuscripts not immediately rejected due to ethical concerns, plagiarism, or scope mismatch will be assigned to a handling editor to continue the peer review process.

The journal employs a double-anonymized peer review system, where both the authors’ and reviewers' identities are concealed to ensure impartial and unbiased review. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the submitted topic. Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge and verified by the editor through sources such as ORCID, Scopus ID, Web of Science Researcher ID, Google Scholar, or CV verification. Typically, reviewers are authors who have previously published in this journal or are recognized experts in the field. For more details, refer to our Peer Review Process and Peer Review Policy.

Review Timeline

Reviewers have one week to respond to the invitation (accept or decline). Once the assignment is accepted, the reviewer has an additional 2-3 weeks to complete the review. Therefore, the total review process should take no more than four weeks.

If a reviewer cannot meet this timeline, they must promptly inform the editorial team to arrange a replacement. Reviewers must follow the journal’s Review Guidelines and complete the official review form. They should provide a clear recommendation—accept, reject, or request revisions—and may attach additional comments or reports to support their evaluation.

Authors may suggest reviewers; however, the editor makes the final decision. The selection of reviewers must be based on reasonable grounds and free of conflicts of interest. Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers if a potential conflict of interest exists, but the editor makes the final decision. Any attempt to manipulate or falsify reviewer information may result in manuscript rejection and an ethical investigation following COPE guidelines.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Therefore, they are expected to review manuscripts with the highest ethical standards. Reviewers must conduct their assessments fairly, objectively, and on time, ensuring that clear arguments support all criticisms. The review must be free of personal bias, and reviewers must not use any unpublished information from the manuscript for personal gain. All data obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not shared with third parties without the journal’s explicit permission.

In some instances, a potential conflict of interest may exist, such as personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors, research, or funding institutions. In that case, the reviewer must notify the handling editor immediately and decline the review. Reviewers are also responsible for reporting any suspicion of ethical violations, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, to the handling editor for further investigation.

Reviewers are expected to update their personal and professional information and areas of expertise in their journal profiles so that editors can select the most suitable reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers should only accept review assignments if they are confident that no conflicts of interest—personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious—will affect their objectivity and fairness.

Reviewers must respond to review invitations within the given time frame, regardless of whether they accept or decline the assignment. They must complete the review by the journal’s deadline if they accept. If reviewers suspect any misconduct in the manuscript, they should report it to the handling editor immediately.

Reviewer Duties

  • Confidentiality and Ethics: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process and not use it for personal gain. Without the journal's explicit permission, reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished details from manuscripts.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must ensure that there are no competing interests that could affect the objectivity of their review. If a conflict of interest is identified after accepting the assignment, they must inform the editor immediately and withdraw from the review.
  • Objective and Fair Review: Reviewers must provide honest, objective, and constructive feedback on manuscripts and support their criticisms with relevant and robust arguments. Any recommendation—accept, reject, or request revisions—must be accompanied by clear and logical reasons.
  • Reporting Ethical Misconduct: If reviewers suspect any misconduct or ethical violation in the manuscript, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, they must report it to the handling editor for further investigation following COPE guidelines. Reviewers must not conduct independent investigations of suspected misconduct.

Use of AI in the Review Process

Reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to evaluate manuscripts or draft reviews. Instead, all assessments and feedback must reflect the reviewer’s expertise and judgment, ensuring the integrity and originality of the peer review process.

Suppose a reviewer uses AI tools such as grammar or spell-checking for administrative purposes. In that case, they must disclose this to the editor and ensure that the final review reflects their critical evaluation.

Editors

Editors are responsible for making high-standard editorial decisions by ethical guidelines. Manuscripts will be accepted if their subject aligns with the journal’s focus, they contain no significant technical errors, the English used is acceptable, and neither the editor nor reviewers have raised ethical issues. All acceptance decisions are made transparently and objectively based on evaluating the manuscript’s quality and relevance.

  • Manuscript Acceptance: Manuscripts are accepted if all publication criteria are met, including alignment with the journal’s focus, absence of technical errors, and no ethical issues.
  • Requesting Revisions: If some conditions are unmet but can be resolved with minor adjustments, editors will request revisions. They will then review whether the author’s revisions adequately address the reviewers’ comments.
  • Post-Revision Evaluation: Manuscripts are only accepted after all required conditions have been fulfilled, either in the initial manuscript or through the revision process.

If an author disagrees with a reviewer’s comments, the author should first provide a clear and respectful rebuttal addressing the points of disagreement. This process allows for constructive dialogue between the author and the reviewer, promoting transparency and fairness in the review process.

The author may contact the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) if the disagreement remains unresolved after the rebuttal. The EiC will reassess both the manuscript and the review and, if necessary, seek additional input from other reviewers. The EiC is responsible for making the final decision and ensuring that it is based on an objective and fair evaluation of the manuscript.

Ethical Issues in Publishing

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) is the main point of contact for ethical concerns, appeals, and complaints. Exception: Complaints regarding misconduct by the EiC should be directed to the Executive Editor. The EiC is fully responsible for final decisions regarding article acceptance, rejection, correction, and retraction. Anyone raising ethical concerns should contact the EiC immediately, who will initiate an investigation. The EiC may contact the authors’ institution, employers, or funding agencies, involve other editors, and seek advice from external experts or institutions. After investigation, the EiC will decide whether the article should be corrected or retracted.

Corrections

Minor corrections like typographical errors will be transparently made and noted with a correction statement. The changes will be reflected directly in the document, and an editorial note will be provided to inform readers of the changes. Relevant literature databases will be notified to reflect these corrections in their records.

Retractions

Article retraction is reserved for works with serious flaws, such as unethical research, plagiarism, or unreliable results (due to miscalculation, experimental errors, data fabrication, or falsification), or where findings have been published without proper attribution or permission to re-publish. Retracted articles will be removed from the journal's article page, but the title and author names will remain listed, preceded by "RETRACTED: [article title]". The article's DOI will remain active, and a notice explaining who retracted the article and the reasons for retraction will be added.

The journal does not charge fees for corrections or retractions. Please see our Policy for more detailed information on the article withdrawal, retraction, or correction process.

Online-First Articles Policy

Online-First Articles (also known as Articles in Press) provide early online access to manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication but are not yet assigned to a specific issue or volume. These articles may undergo minor revisions, such as formatting or metadata updates, before their final publication. Each article is assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI), allowing for immediate citation. We recommend citing these articles: Author(s), Article Title, Journal Name (year), and DOI. 

Once an article is assigned to a specific volume or issue, its online-first version (or articles in press) will be replaced by the final published version. The article will be moved to the designated volume or issue and removed from the Online-First section. At this point, all remaining bibliographic details will be added.

Authors will receive notifications about any updates related to their articles. We encourage authors to regularly check the Online-First Articles section to stay informed about their work. Notifications will be sent when an article is assigned to a specific volume or issue for formal publication. 

References: