Jurnal Poros Hukum Padjadjaran (JPHP)  is a peer-reviewed journal published by Master of Laws Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran. This journal is available in print and online and highly respects the publication ethic and avoids any type of plagiarism. This statement explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor in chief, the editorial board, the peer-reviewers­­­­­ and the. This statement under is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication. The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal of JPHP is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Magister of Laws Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran as publisher of JPHP takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognize our ethical behavior and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Master of Laws Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions. The editor of Jurnal Poros Hukum Padjadjaran is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may co nfer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play. The editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

The following statements describe ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for Jurnal Poros Hukum Padjadjaran, i.e.: the author, the editor, and the peer reviewer.

Duties of Authors

1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
2. Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
3. Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
4. Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
5. Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
6. The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
7. Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

Duties of the Editorial Board 

1. Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish
2. Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process
3. Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting
4. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct
5. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct
6. Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them
7. Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest

Duties of Reviewers

1. only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
2. respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
3. not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
4. declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
5. not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
6. be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
7. acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
8. provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
9. recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct