1. Authorship Criteria and Eligibility

Authors must contribute intellectually to the study, participate in writing or substantive revision, approve the publication version, and accept accountability for resolving integrity questions. Rank, funding or administrative support alone is insufficient. Eligible contributors must have an opportunity to meet these requirements. The corresponding author coordinates approvals and accurate affiliations without replacing co-author responsibility. Acknowledgments require permission; contributor-role labels do not automatically confer authorship. Authorship changes need reasons and documented agreement. Unresolved attribution disputes are referred to competent institutions.

• Describe what was actually done, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and report important limitations.
• Check the accuracy of citations, quotations, calculations, tables and images before submission. Do not invent evidence or conceal changes that affect interpretation.
• Disclose related publications, preprints and overlapping submissions to the editor. Do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration here.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where needed. Notify the editor when a significant error is found, including after publication, and cooperate in resolving it.

2. Author Contributions and Authorship Order

Authorship requires substantial scholarly contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the submitted version and accountability for the work. Contributor roles may be described using a recognised taxonomy such as CRediT without treating the taxonomy itself as an authorship test. Group authorship must identify the group and, where required, the accountable members.

Authorship changes after submission require a reason and documented agreement from affected authors; changes after acceptance receive heightened scrutiny and must not conceal purchased, guest or ghost authorship. A deceased or incapacitated contributor may remain an author when the contribution is established and an authorised representative confirms the record where appropriate. A documented author name change may be handled sensitively without requiring disclosure of private reasons.

3. Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author coordinates communication, confirms the complete author list and consent to submission, collects accurate affiliations and declarations, and circulates editorial decisions and revisions to all co-authors. Each author approves the final version and remains responsible for their contribution. An administrative contact role does not establish greater intellectual ownership.

4. Authorship Changes and Disputes

The author list must represent genuine scholarly contributions. Each author must approve the manuscript and accept responsibility for their contribution and for helping resolve questions about the work. Other assistance should be acknowledged with permission. Administrative position, funding alone or an agreement to purchase authorship does not establish authorship.

The corresponding author coordinates communication, but does not replace the responsibilities of other authors. Requests to add, remove or reorder names require reasons and documented agreement from affected contributors. Unresolved disputes may pause processing and require institutional assessment; editors do not adjudicate employment or ownership disputes.

Changes to the author list require a reason, an explanation of contributions and written agreement from affected authors. Editors request clarification when contributions are disputed; institutions may be asked to investigate disputes the journal cannot resolve. A contribution statement does not by itself confer authorship. Administrative name corrections are handled with respect for privacy.

5. Acknowledgments and Institutional Affiliations

Obtain permission before naming acknowledged contributors. Affiliations and researcher identifiers must describe genuine relationships and identities. Where anonymous review applies, identifying details are submitted separately and removed from the review manuscript and document properties.

6. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship

Automated systems cannot approve a manuscript or accept scholarly accountability and therefore cannot be authors. Human authors verify AI-assisted work, remain responsible for evidence and attribution, and disclose substantive assistance under the journal’s Generative AI Policy.

1. Original Research Articles

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat considers scholarly manuscripts within its scope and the submission categories made available by the editors. Available categories are defined in the submission system; a category does not guarantee acceptance.

Research reports present a clear question, relevant literature, methods, evidence, analysis, limitations and contribution. Where relevant, authors provide ethics approval, funding, competing interests, contributor roles and data-availability statements.

2. Research Approaches and Scholarly Contributions

Textual, conceptual, historical and empirical approaches are assessed on the clarity of their analytical procedures and contribution, not on labels alone. Authors distinguish source material from interpretation and explain why their evidence supports their conclusions. A review critically evaluates scholarship rather than promoting a book or compiling summaries. Editorial communications remain clearly identified and are not presented as externally reviewed research unless they underwent that process. Available categories and formatting requirements are published in the journal-specific Author Guidelines.

3. Scholarly Book Reviews

Reviews explain how sources were selected and analysed. Conceptual contributions develop an argument supported by verifiable scholarship. Book reviews, commentaries and correspondence may be submitted only when the editors have opened the corresponding category. A manuscript must not be represented as empirical research when no empirical evidence was collected.

4. Editorial and Other Journal Content

All manuscript types remain subject to applicable originality, ethics and editorial checks. Authors select the correct category and follow the author guidelines. Editors may request category clarification, methodological explanation or supporting documents before assessment proceeds. Word limits and formatting are governed by the author guidelines, not assumptions about an article type.

Editorials and introductory communications are identified by type and purpose. They are not described as externally reviewed research unless they actually underwent that process. Categories available for submission, word limits, language and formatting follow the journal-specific Author Guidelines.

1. Journal Archives and Publication Records

Preservation coverage for LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat is limited to deposits and services confirmed by the provider. A service logo, installed plugin or future plan does not establish successful preservation. The editorial office supplies verified information about providers, covered issues and known limitations on request.

Backups support recovery of the journal’s application, files and database after accidental loss or technical failure. Their usefulness depends on appropriate access controls, separate storage and tested recovery procedures. Public information about recovery arrangements excludes credentials, private paths and security-sensitive infrastructure. An ordinary backup is not the same as independent long-term preservation.

2. Long-Term Digital Preservation

Where a preservation service is in operation, the journal identifies its name, evidence of participation and the years or issues covered. Participation may depend on eligibility, agreements and successful deposits. The service’s terms determine how preserved content is made available after a trigger event; this page must not promise recovery or public access beyond those arrangements.

For any preservation service in operation, journal staff verify deposit results and investigate missing files, incomplete coverage and failed transfers. Known gaps are disclosed when coverage is reported; plugin activation alone is not treated as a successful deposit. Corrections or replacement files may require additional deposits according to the provider’s process; a successful old deposit does not prove that the latest version is preserved.

If publication ceases, the publisher coordinates continuity or transfer arrangements with the responsible service providers, subject to applicable agreements and trigger conditions. Persistent identifiers and public notices are retained where feasible. Access after cessation is limited to confirmed arrangements; future plans do not constitute an existing preservation guarantee.

Contact the editorial office for evidence of the provider, deposited content and coverage period. No participation in a named preservation service or guaranteed recovery is represented without that evidence.

Contact the editorial office

3. Persistent Identifiers and Bibliographic Metadata

Published article records identify the work through titles, authors, dates, issue information and persistent identifiers where assigned. DOI registration and a journal website backup do not by themselves prove independent preservation. Corrections and status notices remain discoverable through linked article records. Service names and coverage are reported only when supported by actual arrangements.

4. Repositories and Scholarly Access

Authors should retain their research records and permitted manuscript copies in accordance with institutional and repository requirements. Personal copies supplement but do not replace the journal’s preservation arrangements. Questions about a missing issue or preserved version should include its identifier and publication year. The editorial office provides verified information and updates the published arrangements when they change.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. Copyright Ownership

Copyright ownership and the permissions granted to LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat are established by the publication agreement and the rights statement on the article. Authors must have authority to submit their work and agree to the applicable publication terms. The journal’s website design, theme software and article content are different works; a software or website licence must not be mistaken for the licence of an article.

2. Publishing Rights and Author Retention

Updating this page does not retrospectively replace the licence of an existing article. Errors in a rights statement need documented editorial clarification with the rights holder, not a silent blanket change. Readers and authors can contact the editorial office with an article identifier and the specific permission question. Disputed rights may require advice beyond the journal’s editorial authority.

The publication agreement, article landing page, full text and deposited metadata identify the same applicable ownership and licence, except where separately credited material has different terms. Authors must have an opportunity to review the applicable terms before publication. A licence URL or badge must correspond to the stated licence version and must not be used to imply broader rights than the rights holder granted.

3. Third-Party Copyright and Permissions

Figures, photographs, instruments or extracts may have separate credit lines and permissions. Authors should identify exclusions from the article licence and retain evidence of permission where required. A copyright licence does not by itself resolve privacy, confidentiality, trademark or participant-consent issues. Consult the relevant notices before reusing identifiable images or sensitive material.

1. Applicable Publication License

Check the licence name, version and official link on the particular article and its full-text file. If these disagree, ask the editorial office to clarify rather than assuming the broadest permission. The rights statement on each article and its publication agreement determine the applicable licence and ownership. No additional permission is created by this page.

The publication agreement and rights statement on the individual article govern ownership, reuse and repository permissions. Request clarification through the editorial office where a permission is not explicit; no additional rights are granted by omission.

Contact the editorial office

2. Permitted Reuse and Attribution

Reusers must follow the terms that apply to the material, including attribution and any conditions for adaptations or redistribution. Keep enough bibliographic information to identify the original work and its licence. Do not imply that the authors or journal endorse a reuse. Where a proposed use falls outside the permission granted, seek the necessary permission from the relevant rights holder.

3. Restrictions and Repository Distribution

Permission to deposit the submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript or published version is determined separately by the applicable publication agreement and article licence, including any embargo. Authors should use the appropriate version and include a link to the published record where available. Do not infer permission for every version merely because one version is openly accessible. Repository requirements should be checked against the applicable agreement.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. Originality and Plagiarism

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat requires authors to distinguish their own contribution from material created by others. Attribution is required for ideas, language, data, illustrations and software, including material obtained online or translated from another language. A citation alone does not justify reproducing extensive wording without quotation or any permission that may be needed.

Authors must identify related submissions, earlier publications, theses, preprints and conference versions in the submission information. Explain the new contribution and any shared data or text. Prior dissemination is assessed in context; it is not automatically equated with misconduct. Undisclosed duplicate submission or misleading presentation of previously published results may compromise consideration.

2. Similarity Screening

Editors examine the location, extent and significance of overlap alongside the sources. Where a similarity report is available, it is supporting evidence, not a verdict. Bibliographies, quotations, standard terminology and methods may produce matches. Conversely, a low score does not establish originality.

3. Editorial Action and Research Integrity

A concern should identify the disputed passages and their sources. The handling editor records the evidence, requests an explanation and allows a reasonable opportunity to respond. A conflicted editor is replaced for that assessment. Where investigation requires access to research records beyond the journal’s authority, the relevant institution may be asked to investigate; an allegation is not a finding of guilt.

Action depends on the evidence and the effect on the work. It may include clarification, corrected attribution, substantive revision, rejection or referral for further investigation. For published work, the editor considers a linked correction, expression of concern or retraction rather than silently changing the article. Any additional restrictions must be justified and communicated, not imposed automatically from a similarity score.

Authors may challenge an assessment through the complaints and appeals process, identifying overlooked evidence or a procedural error. Readers may report concerns using the editorial contact below. Provide sufficient evidence without publicly disclosing confidential manuscripts or personal records. The journal keeps an appropriate record of the assessment and communicates its outcome to the parties concerned.

Fabricated sources, citation rings, purchased or fictitious authorship, paper-mill material, false affiliations and manipulated reviewer identities are integrity concerns distinct from ordinary text overlap. Editors assess the available evidence and may request original records, identity confirmation or institutional assistance. Withdrawal does not prevent proportionate investigation or action needed to protect the literature.

1. Reportable Research and Publication Misconduct

Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image alteration, paper-mill material, fake or compromised peer review, identity theft, fictitious affiliation, purchased authorship and coordinated citation manipulation are incompatible with publication in this journal. Suggested reviewer details, author identities, research records and declarations must be genuine and verifiable.

Automated screening may support assessment but is not a finding by itself. The journal evaluates specific evidence, preserves relevant records, gives affected parties an opportunity to respond and may consult institutions, funders, other journals or specialists where proportionate. Necessary action may continue even when a submission is withdrawn.

Images, audio, video and other records must represent the underlying observations faithfully. Global adjustments may be acceptable when disclosed and when they do not obscure, move, remove or introduce relevant features. Selective enhancement, undisclosed compositing, duplication or synthetic replacement that changes interpretation is prohibited.

Authors must retain original files and an audit trail for material processing and provide them confidentially when a documented concern requires assessment. Identifiable persons require appropriate consent for publication. Corrections to media or underlying metadata must be traceable and coordinated with the article record.

Where relevant, manuscripts must describe ethics approval, the approving body and consent procedures, or explain a justified exemption. Research involving people, sensitive records, vulnerable groups or animals requires safeguards appropriate to the discipline and applicable requirements. Authors must not invent an approval or obtain it retrospectively and present it as prior approval.

Consent to participate is not necessarily consent to publish identifiable information. Minimize identifying details and explain any restriction on disclosure. Editors may request supporting documentation through a confidential channel rather than requiring sensitive material to be made public.

Provide enough methodological detail for readers to evaluate the findings. State where supporting data, code or materials can be accessed, or why access is restricted. Confidentiality, consent and legitimate rights take precedence over unrestricted sharing.

Retain relevant research records and respond to reasonable requests for clarification. Describe exclusions, transformations and image adjustments that matter to interpretation. For registered studies or discipline-specific reporting requirements, supply the relevant registration and reporting information. An unavailable dataset must not be described as openly accessible.

Prospective registration is required where applicable to the study design, discipline, funder or law, particularly for clinical trials. Registration identifiers and material deviations from a protocol must be reported. Authors should follow relevant reporting guidelines and explain sex- and gender-related variables when scientifically relevant.

Research involving people, animals, biological materials, hazardous procedures or dual-use concerns must describe the applicable approval, consent, welfare and safety safeguards. Editors may seek specialist or institutional advice and may decline publication when risks are not adequately managed. Publication does not replace legal, professional or institutional responsibilities.

Authors must provide a data availability statement appropriate to the work. When sharing is ethical and lawful, use a trustworthy repository and a persistent identifier where available. Data, code and materials used as evidence should be cited so that creators receive credit and readers can identify the exact resource and version.

Restrictions based on consent, confidentiality, security, Indigenous or community rights, contractual duties, intellectual property or other legitimate constraints must be explained without exposing protected information. “Available on request” should state the responsible contact and relevant conditions. Editors must not claim that data are open when access has not been verified.

2. Reporting Allegations

A report identifies the affected work, concern and supporting evidence. Credible anonymous reports are assessed on substance. An unconflicted handler evaluates the concern, invites a response and documents the outcome. The journal distinguishes correcting its publication record from investigating institutional research conduct. Matters beyond editorial authority may be referred to competent bodies. An allegation is not a finding of guilt. Action must reflect verified evidence, reliability and proportionality, including when concerns involve editors or reviewers.

3. Preliminary Assessment and Fair Procedure

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern and provide available evidence. Confidential or anonymous reports are assessed on their substance. Allegations are not treated as established misconduct.

1. The editorial office records the concern and identifies an impartial person to assess it.
2. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and clarification or supporting records may be requested.
3. Where the question exceeds editorial authority, appropriate institutions or specialists may be consulted with proportionate disclosure.
4. The editor documents the assessment and communicates an appropriate outcome. A pending investigation is not evidence of guilt.

An appeal should identify a factual or procedural error, rather than only disagreement with a decision. Complaints about the handling editor must be referred to an independent contact through the journal’s complaints procedure. The editorial office communicates delays and the next steps without promising a fixed outcome.

Reports should include the article or manuscript identifier, the concern and supporting evidence, and may be sent through the official editorial contact. The unconflicted handling editor records the allegation, secures relevant records and requests a response from the parties concerned. The journal assesses evidence fairly, protects confidential information and consults relevant COPE guidance. Institutional investigation may be requested where needed. Complainants and authors are informed of the outcome to the extent confidentiality permits; an unresolved concern may require a linked public notice.

4. Editorial Outcomes and the Scholarly Record

Depending on verified findings, the journal may close the concern, request clarification, pause processing, reject a submission, or refer matters to competent institutions. For published work, assess whether a correction, expression of concern or retraction is justified. Record reasons, communicate appropriate outcomes and preserve traceability; an allegation alone does not establish misconduct.

1. Author Disclosures and Research Funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. Relevant interests may be financial, professional or personal. Disclosure allows assessment; it does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Authors identify funding and material support, including the funder’s involvement in the research and publication decision. Editors decide whether disclosure, independent handling or recusal is needed. Interests discovered later should be reported so that the record and handling arrangements can be corrected where necessary.

Disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests at submission and update them when circumstances change. An editor with a competing interest must not handle the decision. Reviewers disclose conflicts before accepting an invitation and notify the editor of conflicts discovered later. Relevant author disclosures and funding statements accompany the published work.

2. Competing Interests of Reviewers and Editors

Editors assess relevance, originality, soundness and ethical acceptability. Decisions must be reasoned and free from discrimination, personal advantage and commercial pressure. Payment, prestige or institutional relationships must not purchase acceptance.

The handling editor selects appropriate expertise, considers reviewer reports and author responses, and explains the decision. An editor with a relevant conflict must transfer handling to an independent editor. Editorial-board submissions and special issues require the same safeguards as other submissions. Confidential records must be accessible only to people with a legitimate role.

Special issues, guest-edited collections and submissions from editors or board members follow the same quality and ethics requirements as other content. An independent editor must handle a manuscript where a journal editor has a conflict, and the published article should disclose the relevant handling arrangement when appropriate. Guest editors work under journal oversight; sponsorship, invitation or board status does not guarantee acceptance.

3. Disclosure Management and Undeclared Interests

Declarations cover relevant financial and non-financial relationships and the funder’s actual role. Reviewers disclose circumstances affecting independence; conflicted editors recuse themselves. An editor’s own submission is assigned to independent handling without that author selecting reviewers or making the decision. Disclosure does not automatically require rejection. Undeclared interests may require reassignment or a corrected declaration; post-publication action depends on their significance.

1. Scholarly Dialogue After Publication

Readers may send substantive comments or evidence of error to the editorial office. The editor gives authors an opportunity to respond where appropriate. Scientific disagreement alone is not a reason to remove a paper.

A correction addresses a material error when the work remains reliable. Serious unreliability may require retraction; unresolved substantial concerns may justify an expression of concern. Notices explain the reason, identify the affected work and link to its record. Withdrawal before publication is distinct from retraction. Removal of published content is exceptional; changes must not silently rewrite the scholarly record.

Substantive reader comments identify the article and provide a reasoned argument or evidence. The editor screens for relevance, personal attacks and confidential material, and invites the authors to respond where appropriate. Publication of criticism or a response does not depend on agreement with its conclusions. Errors affecting reliability are assessed for correction, expression of concern or retraction. Notices explain the reason and link to the affected article; disagreement alone is not grounds for retraction.

2. Submission of Scholarly Comments

Identify the article by DOI or permanent URL, explain the argument and supply relevant evidence. Comments must be scholarly and avoid personal attacks or unauthorized disclosure. Editors assess relevance and may invite the original authors or independent specialists to respond. Published correspondence is identified and linked to the article. Disagreement alone is not misconduct; concerns about reliability follow correction or research-integrity procedures.

3. Editorial Assessment and Author Response

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern and provide available evidence. Confidential or anonymous reports are assessed on their substance. Allegations are not treated as established misconduct.

1. The editorial office records the concern and identifies an impartial person to assess it.
2. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and clarification or supporting records may be requested.
3. Where the question exceeds editorial authority, appropriate institutions or specialists may be consulted with proportionate disclosure.
4. The editor documents the assessment and communicates an appropriate outcome. A pending investigation is not evidence of guilt.

An appeal should identify a factual or procedural error, rather than only disagreement with a decision. Complaints about the handling editor must be referred to an independent contact through the journal’s complaints procedure. The editorial office communicates delays and the next steps without promising a fixed outcome.

Reports should include the article or manuscript identifier, the concern and supporting evidence, and may be sent through the official editorial contact. The unconflicted handling editor records the allegation, secures relevant records and requests a response from the parties concerned. The journal assesses evidence fairly, protects confidential information and consults relevant COPE guidance. Institutional investigation may be requested where needed. Complainants and authors are informed of the outcome to the extent confidentiality permits; an unresolved concern may require a linked public notice.

1. Types of Corrective Action

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat distinguishes withdrawal of an unpublished submission from changes to a published article. The aim is an accurate and traceable scholarly record. A request should identify the article or manuscript, explain the problem and supply evidence. Authors should involve all co-authors and disclose any disagreement; editors assess the evidence independently.

The corresponding author may request withdrawal while a manuscript is under consideration. The editorial office confirms the submission’s status and communicates the outcome. Authors should not assume that a pending request has completed the withdrawal or submit the same manuscript elsewhere while its status remains unresolved. A withdrawal request does not erase records needed to assess a documented integrity concern.

A correction is considered when an error needs public clarification while the article remains substantially reliable. Explain the affected passages, figures, metadata or conclusions and provide the proposed correction. Significant changes receive editorial assessment and, when necessary, expert advice. A notice identifies the change and links to the article so readers can understand what was corrected.

An expression of concern may alert readers to a substantial unresolved problem. Retraction may be appropriate when serious errors or misconduct undermine reliability, or other substantiated grounds require it. These actions protect readers and are not simply penalties for authors. Consultation and a reasoned editorial assessment are required; an author’s disagreement does not automatically prevent an appropriate notice.

Grounds may include unreliable findings caused by major error, fabrication or falsification; plagiarism or redundant publication; unethical research; unauthorized or unlawful material; compromised peer review; purchased, fictitious or unverifiable authorship; identity theft; systematic citation manipulation; a major undisclosed competing interest; dependence on retracted evidence; or a serious breach of the journal’s AI policy. An expression of concern may be used when credible risk is substantial but evidence or an external investigation remains incomplete.

2. Editorial Assessment and Decision-Making

The editorial office coordinates any necessary updates to article files, metadata and external services within its control. It cannot guarantee when third-party copies or indexes will change. Authors may appeal using relevant new evidence or procedural grounds. Readers should consult the current article landing page for notices; downloaded copies may not contain subsequent updates.

An unconflicted editor assesses the evidence and the effect on the reliability of the work, seeks responses from affected authors and specialist or institutional advice where needed, and records the reasons for the decision. Incomplete investigations may justify an expression of concern, not a premature finding of misconduct. Authors are informed of the decision and may appeal with new evidence or a specific procedural ground; disagreement alone does not prevent a justified notice.

3. Publication Notices and Scholarly Records

The journal may use a correction, corrigendum, erratum, publisher correction, editor’s note, expression of concern, retraction or removal notice according to the nature of the problem and the terminology supported by its publishing system. The notice must identify who issues it, what changed and why. Labels must not obscure whether responsibility lies with authors, the journal, the publisher or an unresolved investigation.

The article landing page and notice must link to one another. The original record normally remains accessible and is clearly marked when retracted; corrected files must be identified by date or version and must not silently replace the version of record. Metadata, DOI records and services under the journal’s control are updated consistently. A removal notice retains bibliographic information where legally and technically permissible.

Corrective notices state their type, affected article and reasons, with reciprocal links to the record. Retraction normally preserves access with clear status markings rather than silently deleting the work. Update relevant metadata and available full-text notices. Author agreement is sought but is not a veto over justified correction. Exceptional removal requires a compelling legal, privacy or safety basis; retain the bibliographic record and explain the removal as far as permissible.

4. Exceptional Article Removal

Published notices state the affected work, reasons, date and issuing party, using factual language and links between records. Retracted material normally remains identifiable as retracted. Removal of content is exceptional, for example where compelling privacy, safety or legal grounds require separate assessment; it is not a routine response to criticism. A bibliographic record and explanatory notice should be retained where permissible.

1. Peer Review Model and Scope

Peer review at LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat supports editorial assessment of a submission’s contribution, soundness and clarity. The review model and any exceptions are specified in the journal-specific terms and author guidelines. Content designated as editorial, commentary or other non-reviewed material is identified as such. Authors consult those terms before submission; this policy does not assign an unverified review model.

Submission checks, reviewer invitations, reports, author responses and the reasons for the editorial decision are retained in the editorial record. Review recommendations inform the editor, who remains responsible for the decision. Review delays or reviewer disagreement may require further advice; they do not justify inventing or concealing a review.

The applicable review model and exceptions are confirmed through the author guidelines or editorial office before submission. No specific reviewer count or anonymity arrangement is conferred by this page alone.

Contact the editorial office

2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office checks completeness and routes the submission for assessment of scope, relevance and ethical concerns. A manuscript may be returned for missing information or declined before external review when it is unsuitable. Authors receive an editorial communication about the outcome. Passing an initial check is not acceptance and does not waive later assessment of research integrity.

3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and ability to provide an independent assessment. They disclose conflicts and decline work they cannot fairly assess. Author suggestions may inform selection but do not bind the editor. Special issues and submissions involving editorial staff need arrangements that separate interested parties from reviewer selection and the final decision.

Invitations are personal. A reviewer must not transfer a manuscript, involve a colleague or use a co-reviewer without prior editorial permission; approved contributors should receive appropriate recognition while preserving the journal’s review model. Impersonation, false credentials and fabricated review reports are prohibited. Reviewers must not request citations for personal or journal advantage; every citation suggestion must be relevant and academically justified.

When authors may suggest reviewers, they must provide accurate identities and institutional or otherwise independently verifiable contact details and disclose relevant relationships. Suggestions are optional information, never appointments. Editors select reviewers independently and investigate suspicious domains, undisclosed relationships, coordinated reports or unusual citation demands before relying on a review.

4. Review Reports and Annotated Files

Reports should identify strengths, limitations and changes needed, with reasons proportionate to the claims. Personal criticism and requests for irrelevant citations are inappropriate. Authors respond to substantive comments and identify revisions or explain disagreements. The editor may request clarification, further revision or additional review; the number of rounds depends on the issues that remain unresolved.

Reviewers use the assigned OJS form and may provide annotated manuscripts where the workflow permits. Editors distinguish confidential comments from material intended for authors. When anonymous review applies, identifying information in comments and document properties is removed before sharing. Authors respond point by point and explain reasoned disagreements. Deadlines and significant delays are communicated through official channels. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not replace, the authorized editor’s decision. The actual review model and reviewer arrangements are stated in journal-specific terms, not inferred from this template.

5. Editorial Decisions, Revisions and Timeline

The responsible editor considers the manuscript, reports and responses before issuing a reasoned decision. Reviewers advise; their recommendations are not votes that automatically determine acceptance. Published processing statistics describe past cases, not a promised deadline for a new submission. Authors may ask about progress and receive information on material delays or request withdrawal through the editorial office.

6. Confidentiality, Independence and Appeals

Review material is handled confidentially according to the applicable journal review model. Reviewers must not use unpublished findings for personal advantage or share manuscripts with unapproved third parties. The journal’s AI policy also applies to review work. Authors may appeal on factual or procedural grounds using the complaints route; acceptance and successful appeal are never guaranteed.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. Access to Published Content

This page explains how readers can obtain content from LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat. Access conditions apply as stated for the journal and individual article. Any registration, payment or embargo condition applies only when expressly disclosed. Access to content does not confer reuse rights beyond the applicable article licence.

Readers should use the article landing page to find available full-text formats and any associated notices. Any registration, payment or embargo condition is disclosed with the affected content before access is requested. An unavailable file may be a technical problem rather than an access restriction; report the article URL and the observed problem to the editorial office.

Reader access must not be used to infer whether authors pay publication fees. Any author charges, waivers or exemptions are disclosed in the journal’s APC terms before submission. Questions about charges should be directed to the journal, not resolved by assumptions about the access model. Financial arrangements must not substitute for assessment of scholarly quality.

Use the article landing page for the applicable access and licence information. Report inconsistent or unavailable access to the editorial office. Reading access and reuse permission are assessed separately.

Contact the editorial office

2. Licensing, Sharing and Scholarly Reuse

Permission to read a file and permission to reuse its contents are separate questions. Consult the licence or rights statement attached to the individual article before redistributing, adapting or using third-party material. Cite the work and indicate relevant changes when required by the applicable terms. This page does not grant rights beyond those held and licensed by the relevant rights holder.

Authors and readers should follow the journal’s copyright and repository terms when sharing versions of an article. Prefer a persistent link to the article record so later corrections remain discoverable. Access on the journal website is distinct from long-term preservation; the archiving page describes the arrangements actually in place and their coverage.

Contact the editorial office if the access statement and an article’s behaviour disagree, or if an accessible alternative format is needed. Explain the difficulty without sending passwords or private account details. Changes to this page require editorial review and must not be presented as retrospective cancellation of reuse permissions already granted for published work.

Access and reuse information is consistent on the journal policy page, article landing page, full-text file and deposited metadata. A machine-readable licence URL supports discovery but does not replace the human-readable rights statement. Where article-specific terms differ legitimately, the article-level statement governs and the reason is recorded.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. Publisher and Institutional Affiliation

The publisher supports editorial independence, appropriate training, secure records and continuity planning. The editor is responsible for manuscript decisions, the designated editorial contact receives complaints, and the publisher oversees technical operations and continuity. Conflicted matters are assigned to an independent handler. Published information about charges, access, ownership and preservation must match actual arrangements.

Commercial or institutional interests must be separated from decisions on individual manuscripts. The publisher assists with necessary notices and institutional correspondence without suppressing findings to protect reputation. Staff communicate professionally and do not retaliate against people who raise concerns in good faith.

Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh

2. Editorial Management

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat identifies its publisher as Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh. Ownership and editorial leadership are identified in the journal identity and editorial-board information. The published policies govern access, fees, rights, publication schedule and preservation. Commercial arrangements are disclosed where applicable. Only verified affiliations, services and coverage are represented as established facts.

The journal name and website must not imitate another publication or mislead readers about affiliation, indexing, metrics or endorsement. Material policy changes require editorial oversight and a dated record. Questions may be sent through the official editorial contact.

Editorial Board · Journal Identity

3. Editorial Independence and Accountability

The journal separates editorial decisions from author fees, sponsorship, advertising and other revenue. Author charges and waivers are disclosed before submission; revenue sources must not purchase favourable editorial outcomes. Advertising, if accepted, must be identifiable and selected independently of individual editorial decisions. Direct marketing must be accurate, targeted and unobtrusive, and must not make misleading claims about indexing, metrics, review speed or guaranteed publication.

1. Editorial Office

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat
Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh
LaKaspia (Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh) Jln. Tgk. Chik Puasa, No. 001 Desa Pango Raya, Kecamatan Ulee Kareng, Kota Banda Aceh, Indonesia

2. Principal Contact

Khairil Fazal
LaKaspia (Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh)
+62 852-6212-7813
khairilfazal@lakaspia.org

3. Support Contact

Journal Administrator
+62 852-6212-7813
journal@lakaspia.org

1. Website Traffic Statistics

Website traffic measurement, when enabled by the journal, records activity according to the reporting period and the service methodology. Reports published on this site are the source of actual figures. Visits are distinct from unique readers, downloads and citations.

2. Geographic Distribution of Visitors

Geographic information is presented only where a measurement service has been configured by the journal. Connection location does not establish a visitor’s nationality or identity. Results depend on privacy settings, networks, tracker blocking and automated filtering. This page does not manufacture country counts or assume that a tracking service is active.

3. Article Usage and Interpretation

Article usage can be consulted on article records where recorded by OJS. Reporting periods, repeated visits, log processing and filtering methods can produce different figures across services. Statistics describe recorded activity, not a direct measure of quality, scholarly impact or accreditation. Questions about methods or unavailable data may be sent to the editorial office.

1. Indexing, Rankings and Accreditation

Indexing claims for LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat are limited to services supported by a verifiable profile or official title list for this journal. A similar journal name is not evidence of coverage. A status statement describes verified coverage at editorial approval; it is not a guarantee that every article or every publication year is included.

An application under evaluation must be described as pending, not as accepted indexing. If coverage changes, the editor updates the public statement and retains enough detail to explain historical coverage. Indexing decisions belong to the service provider. The journal must not promise acceptance, a ranking or uninterrupted coverage as a condition of submission or payment.

Coverage is established by the external service’s official journal profile or title list. Contact the editorial office for the relevant evidence; submission or payment does not guarantee indexing.

Contact the editorial office

2. Bibliographic Databases and Journal Directories

Selective indexes, library catalogues, search engines, repositories and identifier registration services serve different purposes. A DOI deposit or appearance in a search result is not evidence of admission to a selective index. Services are identified by their actual function; registration, discovery and selective indexing are not presented as equivalent forms of accreditation.

3. Academic Discovery and Article Coverage

Accurate titles, author names, affiliations, dates, references and article links help services interpret the published record. Authors should report metadata errors through the editorial office. Corrections made in OJS do not necessarily appear immediately in external databases; refresh schedules and inclusion decisions belong to the service provider. Technical metadata preparation does not guarantee search-engine or scholarly-index inclusion.

When reporting missing or incorrect coverage, supply the article URL or DOI, the service name and the date checked. The editorial office can verify its own metadata and published claim, and contact the provider when appropriate. Readers should distinguish a missing search result from evidence that the journal’s entire coverage has ended.

4. Verification and Repository Records

Use the service’s official journal profile or title list and compare the title, ISSN, publisher and coverage dates. A journal logo on this website is not independent evidence. If a profile link is missing, broken or inconsistent with the claim, ask the editorial office for clarification. A source may cover only selected years or content types.

A repository deposit can provide another access point to an article without demonstrating journal-wide indexing. Check the named service, title, ISSN and coverage dates. Only confirmed journal profiles are evidence of the specific coverage they describe.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. General Principles and Human Accountability

This policy covers generative AI used in preparing, assessing or communicating work submitted to LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat. Authors remain responsible for every statement, reference, image and analysis in their submission. A tool cannot accept authorship responsibilities and must not be listed as an author. Human verification is required even when output appears fluent or technically convincing.

2. Permitted Uses and Research Integrity

When AI forms part of the research method, describe its role, relevant settings, validation and limitations in the methods section rather than only a writing declaration. Do not fabricate evidence, invent citations or present synthetic images as authentic observations. Clearly identify generated material where permitted and retain records sufficient to explain how it was produced and checked.

3. Mandatory AI Disclosure

Disclose substantive assistance with the tool name, version where available, purpose, affected parts and the human checks performed. Place the declaration where editors and readers can find it. Routine spelling or grammar checks need not be declared under this policy. If no substantive assistance was used, authors should not insert a declaration that implies otherwise.

4. Research Methods and Source Verification

A substantive-use declaration should identify the tool and version where known, supplier, date or period of use, purpose, affected manuscript sections, important prompts or settings when relevant, and the human verification performed. Research-method use belongs in the methods section with enough detail for evaluation. Acknowledgement or a separate declaration may be used for writing assistance according to the author guidelines.

Authors must verify quotations, references, calculations, code and factual claims against reliable sources. Invented references, unverifiable claims and confidential material must be removed before submission.

5. Images, Figures and Visual Materials

Generative or generative-fill tools must not create or alter images, audio or video presented as primary observations unless their use is an explicit, ethically approved and reproducibly described part of the research method. Adjustments for readability must not change meaning. Illustrative or graphical material created with AI must be disclosed and must respect copyright, privacy, consent and labelling requirements. Journal artwork, graphical abstracts and cover material remain subject to the journal’s specific instructions.

6. Confidentiality, Privacy and Rights

Before using a service, assess whether the input contains personal data, confidential research, third-party material or unpublished work that cannot lawfully be shared. Do not upload such information without appropriate authority and safeguards. A tool’s availability does not establish permission to use the data. Check outputs for inaccurate attribution, reproduced protected material and unintended disclosure.

7. Peer Review and Editorial Processes

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential submissions or reports to public generative AI services. Their assessment must remain an independent human evaluation. Any journal-authorised assistance requires prior safeguards and transparency about its role. Automated detection scores alone are not proof of inappropriate AI use; concerns require specific evidence and an opportunity for the author to respond.

8. Integrity Screening and Policy Compliance

Undisclosed or inappropriate use is assessed according to its significance, the explanation received and the reliability of the work. Possible responses include clarification, revision or the journal’s integrity and post-publication procedures. This policy is reviewed as tools and risks change. Material revisions require editorial review and approval before the revised policy is published.

Material AI assistance must identify the tool, task and human verification. Writing assistance is declared in the manuscript; research use is also explained in the methods, and relevant visual assistance in captions. Verify quotations, translations, references and computations against authentic sources. AI must not manufacture primary evidence. Public AI services must not receive confidential submissions or identifiable research records without appropriate authorization and safeguards. Human reviewers and editors retain judgment. Detection scores alone cannot establish misconduct; concerns require evidence and an opportunity to respond.

1. Ethical Guidelines and Publisher Responsibilities

This policy sets expectations for everyone participating in the publication of LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff and the publisher. It applies to submissions, published work and concerns raised after publication. Its purpose is to support trustworthy scholarship and fair editorial treatment.

The journal uses COPE Core Practices as a framework for editorial assessment. A reference to COPE is not a statement of membership, certification or endorsement. Discipline-specific requirements and the journal’s more detailed policies must also be consulted.

The publisher supports editorial independence, appropriate training, secure records and continuity planning. The editor is responsible for manuscript decisions, the designated editorial contact receives complaints, and the publisher oversees technical operations and continuity. Conflicted matters are assigned to an independent handler. Published information about charges, access, ownership and preservation must match actual arrangements.

Commercial or institutional interests must be separated from decisions on individual manuscripts. The publisher assists with necessary notices and institutional correspondence without suppressing findings to protect reputation. Staff communicate professionally and do not retaliate against people who raise concerns in good faith.

The journal separates editorial decisions from author fees, sponsorship, advertising and other revenue. Author charges and waivers are disclosed before submission; revenue sources must not purchase favourable editorial outcomes. Advertising, if accepted, must be identifiable and selected independently of individual editorial decisions. Direct marketing must be accurate, targeted and unobtrusive, and must not make misleading claims about indexing, metrics, review speed or guaranteed publication.

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat identifies its publisher as Lembaga Kajian Sosial dan Politik Aceh. Ownership and editorial leadership are identified in the journal identity and editorial-board information. The published policies govern access, fees, rights, publication schedule and preservation. Commercial arrangements are disclosed where applicable. Only verified affiliations, services and coverage are represented as established facts.

The journal name and website must not imitate another publication or mislead readers about affiliation, indexing, metrics or endorsement. Material policy changes require editorial oversight and a dated record. Questions may be sent through the official editorial contact.

2. Duties of Editors

Editors assess relevance, originality, soundness and ethical acceptability. Decisions must be reasoned and free from discrimination, personal advantage and commercial pressure. Payment, prestige or institutional relationships must not purchase acceptance.

The handling editor selects appropriate expertise, considers reviewer reports and author responses, and explains the decision. An editor with a relevant conflict must transfer handling to an independent editor. Editorial-board submissions and special issues require the same safeguards as other submissions. Confidential records must be accessible only to people with a legitimate role.

Special issues, guest-edited collections and submissions from editors or board members follow the same quality and ethics requirements as other content. An independent editor must handle a manuscript where a journal editor has a conflict, and the published article should disclose the relevant handling arrangement when appropriate. Guest editors work under journal oversight; sponsorship, invitation or board status does not guarantee acceptance.

3. Duties of Reviewers

Before accepting, reviewers should consider expertise, availability and competing interests. A report should identify strengths, limitations and necessary changes with reasons. It should distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions. Personal attacks and requests for irrelevant citations are unacceptable.

Reviewers must not share or use unpublished work for their own benefit. They should alert the editor privately to credible integrity concerns, without conducting an unauthorized investigation or contacting authors independently. If circumstances prevent a responsible review, they should inform the editor.

4. Duties of Authors

• Describe what was actually done, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and report important limitations.
• Check the accuracy of citations, quotations, calculations, tables and images before submission. Do not invent evidence or conceal changes that affect interpretation.
• Disclose related publications, preprints and overlapping submissions to the editor. Do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration here.
• Obtain permission for third-party material where needed. Notify the editor when a significant error is found, including after publication, and cooperate in resolving it.

The author list must represent genuine scholarly contributions. Each author must approve the manuscript and accept responsibility for their contribution and for helping resolve questions about the work. Other assistance should be acknowledged with permission. Administrative position, funding alone or an agreement to purchase authorship does not establish authorship.

The corresponding author coordinates communication, but does not replace the responsibilities of other authors. Requests to add, remove or reorder names require reasons and documented agreement from affected contributors. Unresolved disputes may pause processing and require institutional assessment; editors do not adjudicate employment or ownership disputes.

Changes to the author list require a reason, an explanation of contributions and written agreement from affected authors. Editors request clarification when contributions are disputed; institutions may be asked to investigate disputes the journal cannot resolve. A contribution statement does not by itself confer authorship. Administrative name corrections are handled with respect for privacy.

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. Relevant interests may be financial, professional or personal. Disclosure allows assessment; it does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

Authors identify funding and material support, including the funder’s involvement in the research and publication decision. Editors decide whether disclosure, independent handling or recusal is needed. Interests discovered later should be reported so that the record and handling arrangements can be corrected where necessary.

Disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests at submission and update them when circumstances change. An editor with a competing interest must not handle the decision. Reviewers disclose conflicts before accepting an invitation and notify the editor of conflicts discovered later. Relevant author disclosures and funding statements accompany the published work.

Where relevant, manuscripts must describe ethics approval, the approving body and consent procedures, or explain a justified exemption. Research involving people, sensitive records, vulnerable groups or animals requires safeguards appropriate to the discipline and applicable requirements. Authors must not invent an approval or obtain it retrospectively and present it as prior approval.

Consent to participate is not necessarily consent to publish identifiable information. Minimize identifying details and explain any restriction on disclosure. Editors may request supporting documentation through a confidential channel rather than requiring sensitive material to be made public.

Provide enough methodological detail for readers to evaluate the findings. State where supporting data, code or materials can be accessed, or why access is restricted. Confidentiality, consent and legitimate rights take precedence over unrestricted sharing.

Retain relevant research records and respond to reasonable requests for clarification. Describe exclusions, transformations and image adjustments that matter to interpretation. For registered studies or discipline-specific reporting requirements, supply the relevant registration and reporting information. An unavailable dataset must not be described as openly accessible.

Attribute borrowed words, ideas and materials, including substantial reuse of earlier work. Editorial assessment considers the context of overlap; a similarity score alone neither proves nor excludes plagiarism. References should support the manuscript, not manipulate metrics.

Human authors remain responsible when using AI assistance. Disclose substantive use according to the journal’s AI policy and verify outputs against evidence. AI must not fabricate sources or research observations. Editors and reviewers must protect confidential manuscripts and must not delegate scholarly judgment to an automated system.

Authors must disclose preprints, conference versions, repository copies and closely related manuscripts at submission. Prior dissemination is assessed under the journal’s stated policy and must not be concealed. Editors consider whether overlap is legitimate development, redundant publication or copyright infringement, and may request the related material. A preprint must not be presented as the final version of record.

Images and data must represent the underlying observations accurately. Adjustments applied to the whole image may be acceptable when they do not obscure, remove, move or introduce material features; selective manipulation and fabricated data are prohibited. Authors retain original files and relevant records and provide them confidentially when a documented integrity concern requires assessment. Identifiable material remains subject to consent, privacy and legal restrictions.

Authorship requires substantial scholarly contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the submitted version and accountability for the work. Contributor roles may be described using a recognised taxonomy such as CRediT without treating the taxonomy itself as an authorship test. Group authorship must identify the group and, where required, the accountable members.

Authorship changes after submission require a reason and documented agreement from affected authors; changes after acceptance receive heightened scrutiny and must not conceal purchased, guest or ghost authorship. A deceased or incapacitated contributor may remain an author when the contribution is established and an authorised representative confirms the record where appropriate. A documented author name change may be handled sensitively without requiring disclosure of private reasons.

Prospective registration is required where applicable to the study design, discipline, funder or law, particularly for clinical trials. Registration identifiers and material deviations from a protocol must be reported. Authors should follow relevant reporting guidelines and explain sex- and gender-related variables when scientifically relevant.

Research involving people, animals, biological materials, hazardous procedures or dual-use concerns must describe the applicable approval, consent, welfare and safety safeguards. Editors may seek specialist or institutional advice and may decline publication when risks are not adequately managed. Publication does not replace legal, professional or institutional responsibilities.

Authors must provide a data availability statement appropriate to the work. When sharing is ethical and lawful, use a trustworthy repository and a persistent identifier where available. Data, code and materials used as evidence should be cited so that creators receive credit and readers can identify the exact resource and version.

Restrictions based on consent, confidentiality, security, Indigenous or community rights, contractual duties, intellectual property or other legitimate constraints must be explained without exposing protected information. “Available on request” should state the responsible contact and relevant conditions. Editors must not claim that data are open when access has not been verified.

Images, audio, video and other records must represent the underlying observations faithfully. Global adjustments may be acceptable when disclosed and when they do not obscure, move, remove or introduce relevant features. Selective enhancement, undisclosed compositing, duplication or synthetic replacement that changes interpretation is prohibited.

Authors must retain original files and an audit trail for material processing and provide them confidentially when a documented concern requires assessment. Identifiable persons require appropriate consent for publication. Corrections to media or underlying metadata must be traceable and coordinated with the article record.

5. Integrity Concerns and Fair Assessment

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the concern and provide available evidence. Confidential or anonymous reports are assessed on their substance. Allegations are not treated as established misconduct.

1. The editorial office records the concern and identifies an impartial person to assess it.
2. Relevant parties are invited to respond, and clarification or supporting records may be requested.
3. Where the question exceeds editorial authority, appropriate institutions or specialists may be consulted with proportionate disclosure.
4. The editor documents the assessment and communicates an appropriate outcome. A pending investigation is not evidence of guilt.

An appeal should identify a factual or procedural error, rather than only disagreement with a decision. Complaints about the handling editor must be referred to an independent contact through the journal’s complaints procedure. The editorial office communicates delays and the next steps without promising a fixed outcome.

Reports should include the article or manuscript identifier, the concern and supporting evidence, and may be sent through the official editorial contact. The unconflicted handling editor records the allegation, secures relevant records and requests a response from the parties concerned. The journal assesses evidence fairly, protects confidential information and consults relevant COPE guidance. Institutional investigation may be requested where needed. Complainants and authors are informed of the outcome to the extent confidentiality permits; an unresolved concern may require a linked public notice.

Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image alteration, paper-mill material, fake or compromised peer review, identity theft, fictitious affiliation, purchased authorship and coordinated citation manipulation are incompatible with publication in this journal. Suggested reviewer details, author identities, research records and declarations must be genuine and verifiable.

Automated screening may support assessment but is not a finding by itself. The journal evaluates specific evidence, preserves relevant records, gives affected parties an opportunity to respond and may consult institutions, funders, other journals or specialists where proportionate. Necessary action may continue even when a submission is withdrawn.

6. Post-Publication Responsibilities

Readers may send substantive comments or evidence of error to the editorial office. The editor gives authors an opportunity to respond where appropriate. Scientific disagreement alone is not a reason to remove a paper.

A correction addresses a material error when the work remains reliable. Serious unreliability may require retraction; unresolved substantial concerns may justify an expression of concern. Notices explain the reason, identify the affected work and link to its record. Withdrawal before publication is distinct from retraction. Removal of published content is exceptional; changes must not silently rewrite the scholarly record.

Substantive reader comments identify the article and provide a reasoned argument or evidence. The editor screens for relevance, personal attacks and confidential material, and invites the authors to respond where appropriate. Publication of criticism or a response does not depend on agreement with its conclusions. Errors affecting reliability are assessed for correction, expression of concern or retraction. Notices explain the reason and link to the affected article; disagreement alone is not grounds for retraction.

Official journal information is provided through the journal identity, editorial-board and contact pages. Requests for clarification are addressed through the official editorial contact.

Contact the editorial office

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.

1. Research Transparency and Supporting Evidence

Provide enough methodological detail for readers to evaluate the findings. State where supporting data, code or materials can be accessed, or why access is restricted. Confidentiality, consent and legitimate rights take precedence over unrestricted sharing.

Retain relevant research records and respond to reasonable requests for clarification. Describe exclusions, transformations and image adjustments that matter to interpretation. For registered studies or discipline-specific reporting requirements, supply the relevant registration and reporting information. An unavailable dataset must not be described as openly accessible.

2. Data Availability Statement

Authors must provide a data availability statement appropriate to the work. When sharing is ethical and lawful, use a trustworthy repository and a persistent identifier where available. Data, code and materials used as evidence should be cited so that creators receive credit and readers can identify the exact resource and version.

Restrictions based on consent, confidentiality, security, Indigenous or community rights, contractual duties, intellectual property or other legitimate constraints must be explained without exposing protected information. “Available on request” should state the responsible contact and relevant conditions. Editors must not claim that data are open when access has not been verified.

3. Responsible Sharing and Access Restrictions

Research articles include a data-availability statement identifying repositories or explaining access restrictions. Textual and conceptual studies identify their published sources even when no new dataset exists. Qualitative records, archives and computational evidence require documentation appropriate to the method. Sharing must respect consent, confidentiality and third-party rights; controlled access or anonymized evidence may be appropriate. Do not claim that data are deposited or obtainable on request unless an actual arrangement exists. Authors retain relevant records securely and cooperate with proportionate verification requests.

4. Evidence Across Research Approaches

Qualitative studies explain participant selection, records and interpretation while protecting consent and identities. Textual and historical studies identify editions, archives and relevant page or folio references and distinguish quotation from interpretation. Quantitative and computational studies describe sampling, variables, preparation, analytical procedures and software sufficiently for scrutiny. The evidence and documentation must match the work actually undertaken.

5. Data Integrity, Retention and Verification

Images, audio, video and other records must represent the underlying observations faithfully. Global adjustments may be acceptable when disclosed and when they do not obscure, move, remove or introduce relevant features. Selective enhancement, undisclosed compositing, duplication or synthetic replacement that changes interpretation is prohibited.

Authors must retain original files and an audit trail for material processing and provide them confidentially when a documented concern requires assessment. Identifiable persons require appropriate consent for publication. Corrections to media or underlying metadata must be traceable and coordinated with the article record.

6. Examples of Availability Statements

Use only a statement that describes the real arrangement. Public deposit: identify the repository and persistent link. Restricted material: explain the consent, confidentiality or rights restriction and any permitted access procedure. Published-source research: identify the sources and state when no new dataset was generated. A request-access statement is appropriate only when an actual contact and lawful disclosure process exist.

1. Scope of Complaints

LaKaspia: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat accepts concerns about editorial procedure, publication ethics, staff conduct and the accuracy of published material. An appeal asks for reconsideration of an editorial decision on specific factual or procedural grounds. Disagreement with an unfavourable result alone does not establish an error; the submission should explain what requires a fresh assessment.

Send the manuscript or article identifier, the disputed action or decision, supporting evidence and the remedy requested to the editorial contact. Identify whether the matter concerns scholarly judgment, editorial conduct, ethics or service. An appeal should explain a material error or evidence that was overlooked; acceptance is not guaranteed by submitting an appeal.

Information is shared only as needed for fair assessment, legal obligations and protection of the literature. Absolute anonymity cannot be promised where a response requires disclosure. Credible anonymous concerns may still be assessed. The journal addresses editorial matters but cannot replace an employer, court or research institution in determining employment disputes or conducting a full research investigation.

2. Submission and Acknowledgment

Send the article or submission identifier, a concise chronology, the decision or action challenged, relevant correspondence and the remedy requested. Identify supporting documents and any competing interests. Submit sensitive attachments through a channel agreed with the editorial office. Authors appealing a joint submission should make clear whether the other authors support the request.

3. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

The editorial office routes the matter to someone able to assess it without a relevant conflict. The person whose conduct is challenged must not be the sole adjudicator. Complaints involving the handling editor are referred to an unconflicted editorial authority; complaints involving the publisher require an assessor independent of the matter. The editorial office provides the appropriate contact through official correspondence. If a suitable independent assessor is unavailable, the journal explains that limitation and the proposed next step.

The assessor distinguishes a request for explanation from a matter requiring investigation. Relevant parties may be asked for responses or additional evidence. Receipt, missing information and material delays are communicated through editorial correspondence. A fixed response time cannot be guaranteed for all cases; timing depends on the evidence, participation of the parties and any institutional investigation.

4. Independent Assessment, Resolution and Escalation

The response states the issue considered, the basis of the conclusion and any corrective action, within confidentiality limits. A decision may be upheld, reconsidered or referred for further assessment. New material evidence or a substantiated procedural problem can justify further review. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or prevent the journal from protecting the published record when evidence warrants action.

Communications must remain relevant, evidence-based and respectful. Threats, discriminatory abuse, harassment, doxxing and repeated bad-faith contact are not acceptable. Reasonable boundaries may be set while preserving a legitimate route for concerns. No person should be disadvantaged for raising a substantiated concern in good faith; knowingly false allegations may be addressed through an appropriate documented process.

Submit a concern through the official editorial contact and identify any conflict involving the recipient. A person whose conduct is challenged does not act as the sole assessor; the independent handling route is communicated to the parties.

Contact the editorial office

Complaints identify the manuscript or decision, relevant correspondence and the requested review. The journal acknowledges receipt and retains records. Appeals need a factual or procedural ground, not disagreement alone. A person implicated in the complaint must not determine its outcome. Matters concerning senior editors go to an unconflicted publisher representative; if the publisher is implicated, an independent competent authority is required. Communicate reasons and protect good-faith complainants from retaliation. No appeal guarantees acceptance.

Journal-specific arrangements

Journal-specific arrangements have not yet been supplied by the editors.