Publication Ethics Policy

UltimaComm : Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi

1. Commitment to Publication Ethics

UltimaComm: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, accountability, and quality of scholarly communication. The journal expects all participants in the publication process—including authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher—to uphold the highest standards of research and publication ethics.
This policy is informed by the ethical principles and editorial practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its guidance on research misconduct, authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, and the correction of the scholarly record.
Publication ethics is understood not merely as compliance with formal requirements, but as a commitment to responsible knowledge production. The journal therefore evaluates submissions for scholarly originality, methodological integrity, responsible representation of research participants, accurate attribution of intellectual contributions, and transparency in reporting research processes and findings.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological rigor, originality, and ethical compliance. They must not be influenced by an author's institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, political or personal beliefs, seniority, commercial interests, or ability to pay publication fees.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original scholarly work and appropriately acknowledge all ideas, arguments, data, methods, quotations, and other materials derived from existing sources.
The following practices constitute publication misconduct:
a. Plagiarism, including the appropriation of another person's words, ideas, data, or intellectual contributions without appropriate acknowledgment.
b. Self-plagiarism or substantial unattributed reuse of previously published material.
c. Text recycling that misrepresents previously published work as entirely new scholarship.
d. Citation manipulation, including the deliberate addition of irrelevant references to inflate citation counts or improperly influence journal metrics.
e. Fabrication or falsification of references, quotations, research findings, or source materials.
All submissions are subject to editorial screening for originality, citation integrity, and the traceability of referenced sources. Similarity-checking software may support editorial assessment but does not independently establish whether plagiarism has occurred. Editorial judgment must consider the nature, extent, context, attribution, and scholarly significance of the material in question.

2.2 Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research and manuscript. All listed authors must have participated meaningfully in the work, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for its integrity.
Honorary, guest, gift, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. Individuals who have made relevant contributions without meeting the authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the submission, that author names and affiliations are accurate, and that authorship order has been agreed upon before submission.
Any proposed change to authorship after submission—including the addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors—must be justified in writing and approved by all affected authors. The editor may suspend the editorial process while the matter is investigated.

2.3 Original Submission and Redundant Publication

A manuscript submitted to UltimaComm must not be under consideration by another journal simultaneously. Authors must disclose any related manuscripts, previous publications, conference papers, preprints, or other publicly available versions that substantially overlap with the submission.
Prior dissemination does not automatically disqualify a manuscript. However, authors must disclose relevant publication history and demonstrate that the submission offers a sufficiently distinct and substantive scholarly contribution.
Duplicate publication, undisclosed substantial overlap, and the fragmentation of a single study into multiple papers without adequate scholarly justification are unacceptable.

2.4 Research Integrity and Methodological Transparency

Authors must accurately report their research questions, theoretical framework, methodological procedures, data sources, analytical processes, findings, limitations, and conclusions.
Fabrication, falsification, selective reporting that materially misrepresents findings, manipulation of evidence, and deliberate concealment of methodological limitations constitute research misconduct.
Authors must not invent participants, interviews, survey responses, observations, quotations, datasets, research instruments, or analytical procedures. All empirical claims must be supported by verifiable evidence appropriate to the research design.
For qualitative and interpretive research, authors should provide sufficient methodological detail to establish the credibility and traceability of their interpretations while protecting participant confidentiality and research-sensitive information.
Authors may be asked to provide relevant research documentation, instruments, anonymized data, analytical records, or other supporting materials when necessary to assess the integrity of a submission, subject to applicable ethical, legal, contractual, and confidentiality obligations.

2.5 Ethical Oversight and Protection of Research Participants

Research involving human participants or identifiable personal data must comply with applicable institutional requirements, relevant laws, and recognized ethical standards.
Where required, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research. Authors must accurately report the name of the approving institution, the approval reference where applicable, and relevant informed-consent procedures.
Authors must demonstrate appropriate safeguards for voluntary participation, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, and the responsible handling of sensitive information.
Particular care is required when research involves children, vulnerable populations, marginalized communities, or participants who may face professional, social, political, or personal risks arising from publication.
Research using publicly accessible digital content, social media posts, online communities, or platform-generated data must also consider contextual expectations of privacy, identifiability, potential harm, platform conditions, and the ethical implications of reproducing searchable quotations or personal information. Public accessibility alone does not eliminate ethical responsibilities toward the people whose data are analyzed.
Where formal ethics approval is not required or was not obtained, authors must explain the applicable institutional or regulatory basis. Such explanations will be assessed individually and do not automatically guarantee acceptance.

2.6 Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence their research, interpretation, or reporting.
Funding sources and the role of funders in research design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions must be disclosed where applicable.
The absence of a conflict of interest must also be stated explicitly.
Failure to disclose a material competing interest may result in editorial reassessment, correction, rejection, or post-publication action, depending on the circumstances and their implications for the integrity of the work.

2.7 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

UltimaComm recognizes that generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools may assist researchers with certain scholarly tasks. However, the use of such tools must not compromise originality, intellectual accountability, research integrity, confidentiality, or the reliability of published knowledge.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, interpretation, and ethical integrity of the submitted manuscript.
Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI in manuscript preparation, translation, data processing, analysis, image generation, or other research activities when such use affects the scholarly content or research process. The disclosure should identify the tool and explain its purpose and scope of use.
Routine spelling, grammar, and formatting assistance need not ordinarily be disclosed unless the journal's submission instructions require otherwise.
The following practices are prohibited:
a. Presenting AI-generated text, analysis, images, or other outputs as independently verified scholarly work without appropriate human scrutiny.
b. Inventing or misrepresenting references, quotations, data, participants, research procedures, or findings through AI-generated content.
c. Using AI-generated material to conceal the absence of original research, substantive intellectual contribution, or methodological rigor.
d. Submitting AI-generated images or manipulated research materials as authentic empirical evidence.
e. Using AI tools in ways that violate confidentiality, consent, intellectual property rights, or applicable research ethics requirements.
f. Authors must independently verify the existence and accuracy of cited sources, factual claims, and analytical conclusions. Disclosure of AI use does not exempt authors from accountability, and undisclosed or inappropriate use may trigger editorial investigation.

2.8 Copyright, Permissions, and Data Protection

Authors must ensure that all third-party material—including figures, photographs, tables, instruments, and substantial quotations—is used with appropriate attribution and permission where required.
Authors must comply with the journal's copyright, licensing, and publication agreement requirements. Research data and personal information must be collected, stored, shared, and reported in accordance with applicable legal and ethical obligations.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity and independence of the journal's editorial process.
Editors must:
a. Evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively according to scholarly quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance.
b. Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and editorial communications.
c. Select qualified reviewers whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript under consideration.
d. Identify and manage conflicts of interest, including recusal when impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained.
e. Avoid using unpublished material or ideas obtained through editorial handling for personal research or advantage without appropriate authorization.
f. Investigate credible allegations of publication misconduct in a fair, proportionate, and documented manner.
g. Ensure that publication decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, publication fees, institutional pressure, personal relationships, or journal metrics.
h. Publish corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction notices when necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
i. Editors must not manipulate citations by requiring authors to cite the journal, an editor, or a particular researcher without a clear scholarly justification.
j. Editorial screening, peer review, and acceptance decisions must remain independent of any applicable article processing charge (APC). Payment does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers contribute to the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly communication. They are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely assessments.
Reviewers must:
a. Evaluate the manuscript's scholarly contribution, theoretical coherence, methodological adequacy, quality of evidence, and ethical compliance.
b. Maintain confidentiality and refrain from distributing, reproducing, or exploiting unpublished manuscript content.
c. Disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
d. Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged.
e. Report credible concerns regarding plagiarism, fabricated data, manipulated evidence, unethical research practices, or other possible misconduct to the editor.
f. Refrain from personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, coercive citation requests, and the use of peer review to advance personal or institutional interests.
g. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifiable manuscript content to external AI systems without explicit authorization under an applicable journal policy that safeguards confidentiality and intellectual property.
h. Reviewers remain responsible for the substance and accuracy of their reports, including any permitted use of technological assistance.

5. Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making

All research submissions are subject to initial editorial screening to determine their suitability for the journal, compliance with submission requirements, originality, and adherence to publication ethics.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, scholarly standards, or minimum submission requirements may be declined before external peer review.
Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are assessed according to the journal's published peer-review model and reviewer-selection procedures. Editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
A favorable reviewer recommendation does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the editor or the appropriately authorized editorial decision-maker, who must consider the manuscript as a whole.
Editors must provide authors with clear and professionally appropriate reasons for editorial decisions. Where a manuscript is declined, the decision should identify the principal scholarly or procedural grounds without unnecessarily prolonging correspondence.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, a procedural irregularity, or an identifiable conflict of interest affected the decision.
An appeal must provide specific reasons and supporting evidence. Disagreement with an editor's scholarly judgment, without evidence of a material error or procedural problem, is not sufficient by itself to require reconsideration.
Appeals will be assessed by the editor-in-chief or an independent, appropriately authorized editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Where necessary, independent expert advice may be sought.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, or journal procedures will be reviewed fairly and confidentially by an appropriate person independent of the individual whose conduct is being challenged.
The journal will communicate its determination and the principal reasons for it. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

7. Editorial Independence and Publication Fees

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical criteria, not on financial considerations or the commercial interests of the publisher or affiliated institutions.
Any article processing charges, submission fees, waivers, or other publication-related costs must be clearly communicated through the journal's official channels.
Payment of an APC does not guarantee acceptance, preferential peer review, or a favorable editorial decision. Manuscripts must satisfy the same scholarly and ethical standards regardless of whether a fee is applicable.
Editors and reviewers must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest involving authors, institutions, funding bodies, or other parties.

8. Post-Publication Discussion and Scholarly Accountability

UltimaComm recognizes that scholarly knowledge develops through critical scrutiny, disagreement, replication, and continuing discussion.
Readers and researchers may raise substantiated concerns about published work through the journal's designated editorial contact. The journal may consider corrections, scholarly correspondence, editorial responses, or other appropriate mechanisms for post-publication discussion.
Authors may be invited to respond to substantive concerns about their published work. All parties are expected to engage professionally and to distinguish legitimate scholarly disagreement from allegations of misconduct.
The journal will consider credible evidence concerning the reliability or ethical integrity of published articles and take appropriate action where warranted.

9. Implementation and Policy Review

This policy applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other parties involved in the editorial and publication process of UltimaComm: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi.
The journal reserves the right to decline, suspend, or withdraw a manuscript when serious ethical concerns arise. Published articles may be corrected, placed under an expression of concern, or retracted when warranted by the evidence.
Editorial responses will be proportionate to the nature, severity, and consequences of the conduct under review. Where appropriate, the journal will consult COPE guidance and relevant institutional or professional authorities.
This policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with developments in publication ethics, research integrity, digital scholarship, and responsible AI use.
Guiding principle: UltimaComm is committed to advancing communication scholarship through rigorous inquiry, transparent methods, responsible attribution, ethical research practices, and accountable editorial judgment. The integrity of scholarly knowledge takes precedence over publication volume, citation metrics, institutional prestige, and commercial considerations.