Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

  Statement

The Journal of BioNano Aquatic Science and Technology (JBAST) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Perhimpunan Inovasi Teknologi Lingkungan Akuatik (PITLA) and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics while taking all appropriate measures to prevent publication malpractice. This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in publishing in the journal, including authors, the editor-in-chief, associate editors, the editorial board, reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors . Our aim is to publish original, high-quality work that contributes meaningfully to the scholarly community, presented in the best possible form and held to the highest standards. We expect our authors and reviewers to uphold the same level of integrity. Achieving this requires honesty, originality, and responsible conduct from authors, as well as fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality from editors and reviewers. JBAST is committed to applying best practices in handling ethical issues, corrections, and retractions, and will seek legal review when necessary.

  Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism at any stage of conducting, evaluating, or reporting research, including the writing of a manuscript and the presentation of results. When authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities in published journal articles, editors have a duty to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

When misconduct is suspected, the Editors and Editorial Board will follow COPE best-practice guidance to ensure that complaints are handled fairly and appropriately. This includes an editorial investigation of the allegation. Any submitted manuscript found to involve misconduct will be rejected. If misconduct is confirmed in a published article, the journal may issue a retraction that is linked to the original paper.

The process begins by evaluating whether the allegation is credible and whether it aligns with the journal’s definition of research misconduct. This initial assessment also considers whether the complainant(s) may have any relevant conflicts of interest.

If there is a reasonable possibility of scientific misconduct or other serious research irregularities, the allegations will be communicated to the corresponding author, who will be asked—on behalf of all coauthors—to provide a detailed explanation. Once the response is received and assessed, the editors may seek additional evaluation or consult external experts, such as statistical reviewers. In cases where misconduct is considered unlikely, the issue can often be resolved through clarifications, additional analyses, or both, typically published as letters to the editor and, when needed, accompanied by a correction notice and amendments to the original article.

Institutions are expected to carry out a proper and comprehensive investigation when allegations of scientific misconduct arise. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions share a responsibility to safeguard the accuracy of the scientific record. By addressing concerns promptly and taking appropriate actions—such as issuing corrections, retractions with replacement, or retractions—based on the outcomes of these evaluations, JBAST upholds its duty to protect the validity and integrity of the scientific record, in line with its Plagiarism Policy and R-W-C Policy.

  Complaints and Appeals

JBAST maintains a clear procedure for handling complaints directed at the journal, its editorial staff, the editorial board, or the publisher. Complaints will be communicated to the relevant party for clarification in relation to the issue raised. The scope includes matters associated with the journal’s operations, such as the editorial process, suspected citation manipulation, unfair editorial or reviewer conduct, and peer-review manipulation. All complaints will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

  Ethical Oversight

If a study involves chemicals, human participants, animals, procedures, or equipment that pose unusual or inherent risks, authors must clearly describe these hazards in the manuscript and ensure compliance with ethical standards for research involving humans and animals. Where required, authors must provide formal ethics approval or clearance from the appropriate institutional or legal authority.

If a study uses confidential data or sensitive business/marketing information, authors should clearly justify how these data will be handled and indicate whether—and how—the information will be securely protected or withheld.

To promote high-quality publication standards, JBAST outlines the roles, duties, and responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers as detailed below.

  Duties of Editor

Publication Decisions
JBAST editors ensure that every manuscript considered for publication is evaluated through peer review by at least two qualified experts in the relevant field. The Principal Editor makes the final decision on whether a submission will be published, taking into account the validity of the research, its significance for readers and researchers, reviewers’ feedback, and applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those related to defamation, copyright, and plagiarism. The Editor may also consult with other editors or reviewers when making the decision.

Fair Play
Editors assess submitted manuscripts solely on academic merit—such as significance, originality, methodological soundness, and clarity—and on their fit with the journal’s scope. Evaluations are carried out without discrimination based on authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, political views, or institutional affiliation. Editorial and publication decisions are made independently of government policies or external agencies. The Principal Editor has full responsibility for the journal’s editorial content and retains authority over the scheduling of its publication.

Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must keep all details of submitted manuscripts confidential and may share information only with those directly involved in the editorial process—such as the corresponding author, reviewers or prospective reviewers, relevant editorial advisers, and the publisher, as necessary.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editors must not use any unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the authors’ explicit written permission. Any confidential information or ideas obtained through the editorial process must be kept private and not used for personal benefit. Editors must also withdraw from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest—whether due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, or with associated companies or institutions—and arrange for another editorial board member to manage the submission instead.

Management of unethical behavior (s)
Editors, in collaboration with the publisher, should take appropriate and proportionate action when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or a published article. All allegations of unethical publishing conduct will be investigated. For this reason, JBAST has legal experts in the field of Intellectual Property rights on the Ethics Advisory Board.

  Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards
Original research authors should report what they did and what they found honestly, then discuss the work’s importance objectively. Manuscripts should include enough detail and citations so others can repeat the study. Review papers should be factual, unbiased, and thorough, while editorials or perspective/opinion pieces must be clearly labeled. Fabricated, misleading, or deliberately inaccurate claims are unethical and not acceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to submit the raw data behind a paper for editorial review. They should be ready to make the data publicly accessible when appropriate, and they should keep the data for a reasonable period after the paper is published.

Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure their work is entirely original. If they use other people’s words or ideas, these must be properly quoted and/or cited. Plagiarism can include submitting someone else’s paper as your own, copying or closely paraphrasing large portions without attribution, or claiming findings produced by other researchers. Any form of plagiarism is unethical and will not be accepted. Each manuscript will be screened with plagiarism-detection software, and every submission must include an author statement letter confirming the article is free from plagiarism.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
Authors should not publish the same research in more than one journal or primary outlet. Therefore, they must not submit a manuscript that has already appeared in another journal, and they must not send the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time. Concurrent or duplicate submission is unethical and unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of sources
Authors must properly credit the contributions of others and cite works that significantly shaped or informed the study. Any information obtained privately—through conversations, correspondence, or discussions—may not be used or disclosed without the source’s explicit written permission. Likewise, information learned while performing confidential roles (such as reviewing manuscripts or grant proposals) must not be used unless the original author(s) have given clear written consent.

Authorship of the paper
Authorship should include only those who made a substantial contribution to the study’s conception, design, execution, or interpretation, and everyone who meets these criteria should be named as a co-author. Individuals who contributed in meaningful but not authorship-level ways should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agreed to submit it for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works
If an author finds a serious mistake or inaccuracy in their published work, they must quickly inform the journal editor or publisher and work with them to issue a correction or retraction. If the editor or publisher is alerted by someone else that a paper contains a major error, the author must promptly correct or retract the work, or provide convincing evidence that the original publication is accurate.

Hazards and animal subjects
If a study involves chemicals, methods, or equipment with unusual risks, the manuscript must clearly describe those hazards. For research using animals, authors should state that all procedures followed applicable laws and institutional guidelines and received approval from the relevant ethics/oversight committee(s). 

Declaration of competing interests
All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be seen as influencing—or biasing—their work. They should also report all funding sources that supported the research and/or manuscript preparation, and explain what role (if any) the sponsor(s) played in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; writing the paper; and deciding to submit it for publication. If the funder had no involvement, the authors should state this explicitly. Competing interests must be declared in the manuscript/paper template.

Image integrity
t is unacceptable to alter an image by enhancing, hiding, relocating, deleting, or adding any specific feature. Limited adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are allowed only if they do not obscure, remove, or distort information from the original image. Editing images solely to improve clarity is permitted, but manipulation for any other purpose may be considered unethical scientific misconduct and will be addressed accordingly. Authors must also follow the journal’s image policies, such as supplying original images as supplementary files or depositing them in an appropriate repository.

  Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review helps the editor make publication decisions and, through feedback shared with the author during the editorial process, can also help the author improve the manuscript.

Promptness
If a chosen reviewer believes they lack the expertise to assess the manuscript, or knows they cannot complete the review promptly, they should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts sent for review must be handled as confidential documents and must not be shared with or discussed with anyone else unless the editor has given permission.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be fair and objective, and reviewers must avoid personal remarks about the author. Comments should be stated clearly and backed up with sound reasons and evidence.

Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should point out important relevant literature that the authors have not cited. If a result, idea, or argument has been reported before, the reviewer should indicate this and provide the appropriate reference. Reviewers should also alert the editor to any significant similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published work they are aware of.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Any confidential information or ideas learned through peer review must remain private and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should also decline to review manuscripts when they have a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, or with the companies or institutions associated with the work.