Ethic Statement

ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL PUBLICATION

The publication of an article in the Journal Sampurasun : Interdisciplinary Studies for Cultural Heritage is an important medium in development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge that reflects the quality of work of the authors and institutions that support them.

Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. These are,  therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing. Pasundan University and University of Northern Philippines as publishers of this Journal take their duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing and recognize  ethical and other responsibilities.This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their articles for publication attest that such represent their original contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. Researches submitted will be subjected for plagiarism detection evaluation.

Publication Decisions

The editors in chief of the Journal Sampurasun : Interdisciplinary Studies for Cultural Heritage are responsible in deciding which of the articles submitted should be published. They are guided by the policies and guidelines of the journal.

Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Conflicts of Interest

The editorial staff and referees see to it that any information on the comments of a submitted manuscript is not disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding authors. In cases where in such are requested by others, permission is secured first from the authors and the editors-in chief who have the right to grant or deny. Any data in the submitted manuscript are not used in the editorial staff and referees’ own researches until the paper has been published. When conflicts of interest exist, the editorial staff and referees are objective at all times.

Fair play

The  editors and/referees 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.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations. Similarity check will be conducted before review process. Maximum similarity is 25%.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Authorship Criteria

Authors should review and approve the final version before submission and agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work. They should also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for particular parts of the research and cooperate in resolving questions about the paper.
Contributions that do not meet the journal’s authorship requirements—such as routine technical assistance, administrative support, funding acquisition alone, or general supervision—should normally be acknowledged rather than treated as authorship. The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all eligible contributors are included, that everyone listed has approved the manuscript, and that the author order has been agreed upon. Journals may have specific authorship policies, so authors should consult the relevant journal’s instructions before submission.

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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 confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion allows readers and researchers to comment on, question, or expand upon a paper after it has been published. It supports ongoing scholarly exchange and can help clarify methods, identify limitations, suggest alternative interpretations, or highlight the study’s implications.
Journals may facilitate this discussion through letters to the editor, correspondence, online comments, or invited responses. Contributions should be evidence-based, respectful, and focused on the published work or a relevant scholarly issue. Authors of the original paper may be invited to respond, and the journal may review submissions for relevance, accuracy, and professional tone before publication.
If a post-publication comment identifies a possible error or concern, the journal may ask the authors to clarify or investigate. Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its editorial policies. Discussion does not itself establish that a paper is incorrect; any concerns should be assessed fairly and transparently.
Readers and authors should follow the journal’s instructions for submitting comments, disclose relevant competing interests, and provide specific supporting evidence. This process helps maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record while encouraging constructive scientific debate.
 

Corrections and Retractions of Journal Papers

Corrections and retractions are mechanisms journals use to maintain the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record. A published paper may require an update when an error or concern is identified after publication. The journal should assess the matter fairly, document its decision, and make the outcome clear to readers.
A correction is issued when a paper contains an error that affects some part of the publication but does not invalidate its main findings or conclusions. Examples may include mistakes in author information, data labels, figures, or text. The correction notice should describe the error and the change made. Where possible, the online article should be linked to the notice and clearly marked as corrected, while retaining a transparent record of the original publication.
A retraction is issued when the findings or conclusions of a paper are no longer considered reliable, or when serious ethical or publication concerns undermine the validity of the work. Possible reasons include major errors, fabricated or falsified data, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct. A retraction is intended to alert readers that the paper should not be relied upon as part of the scientific evidence. The article is usually retained in the scholarly record but prominently marked as retracted, with a notice explaining the reason and identifying who initiated the retraction when appropriate.
Authors, readers, institutions, or other parties may raise concerns with a journal. Editors should investigate them in a timely and impartial manner, seek relevant evidence and responses from the authors, and consult institutions or other experts when needed. A correction or retraction should not be used as a substitute for a transparent investigation, and a retraction does not necessarily imply that every author was responsible for the problem.
Journals should follow their stated editorial policies and applicable publication-ethics guidance. Clear notices, links to the affected article, and transparent communication help readers understand what changed and preserve trust in the scholarly record.