1. Ethical Principles

IJVEA expects all parties involved in manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication to act honestly, professionally, impartially, and transparently.

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript to the scope of the journal. Decisions must not be influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, personal relationships, or financial status.

The journal applies the following core principles:

• Submitted manuscripts must represent original scholarly work.
• Research data, methods, results, images, and references must be presented accurately and transparently.
• All individuals who meet the authorship criteria must be properly acknowledged as authors.
• Individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria must not be listed as authors.
• Relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
• Manuscripts and peer-review materials must be treated as confidential documents.
• Ethical concerns must be evaluated fairly, consistently, and without unnecessary delay.
• Corrections to the scholarly record must remain transparent and permanently accessible.

2. Responsibilities of Editors

2.1 Fair and Independent Decision-Making

Editors are responsible for deciding which manuscripts are suitable for peer review and publication. These decisions must be based on the quality, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions. Commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressure, or the payment status of an article must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

2.2 Initial Editorial Screening

Before peer review, editors may assess:

• alignment with the aims and scope of IJVEA;
• compliance with author guidelines;
• originality and scholarly contribution;
• methodological adequacy;
• clarity of presentation;
• ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
• similarity or substantial textual overlap;
• possible duplicate or redundant publication;
• completeness of required declarations.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains serious ethical concerns, or does not comply with essential submission requirements.

2.3 Confidentiality

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Manuscript content, author identities, reviewer identities, editorial correspondence, and unpublished data must not be disclosed to unauthorized parties.

Editors must not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for personal research, commercial purposes, institutional advantage, or the benefit of another party without explicit written permission from the authors.

2.4 Conflicts of Interest

An editor must withdraw from handling a manuscript when there is a personal, professional, academic, institutional, or financial relationship that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartial judgment.

The manuscript must then be reassigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

2.5 Management of Ethical Concerns

Editors must assess credible ethical allegations concerning submitted or published manuscripts. Concerns must not be ignored solely because they are raised anonymously. However, allegations must be supported by sufficient information to permit a reasonable assessment.

Editors must:

1. document the allegation and available evidence;
2. conduct an initial assessment;
3. avoid making premature public accusations;
4. contact the corresponding author for clarification;
5. request relevant data or documentation when necessary;
6. consult other editors or independent experts when appropriate;
7. refer the matter to the relevant institution when an institutional investigation is required;
8. take proportionate editorial action based on the available evidence.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist editors in assessing the scholarly quality, originality, validity, relevance, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer comments should also help authors improve their work.

3.2 Competence and Timeliness

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when they possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can complete the review within the requested period.

Reviewers who cannot provide a timely and competent review should promptly decline the invitation.

3.3 Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, constructive, and respectful. Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, unsupported accusations, or demands designed primarily to increase citations to the reviewer's own work are unacceptable.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish:

• major methodological or ethical concerns;
• minor revisions;
• optional suggestions;
• personal preferences that are not essential to validity.

3.4 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share, reproduce, discuss, upload, distribute, or use manuscript content outside the review process without authorization from the editorial office.

Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas, methods, data, results, figures, or arguments for personal or professional advantage.

3.5 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should normally decline when they:

• have a recent collaboration with an author;
• work at the same institution as an author;
• have a direct personal or professional relationship with an author;
• have a financial interest in the research outcome;
• are involved in a direct academic dispute or competition with an author;
• cannot provide an impartial assessment.

3.6 Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor when they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts, inappropriate citations, or substantial similarities with another publication.

Reviewers should provide specific evidence or references whenever possible. They must not contact the authors directly about suspected misconduct.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1 Originality

Authors must submit original work. Text, ideas, data, figures, tables, instruments, software, or other materials taken from another source must be properly quoted, cited, attributed, and, where required, reproduced with permission.

Authors must not present the work of another person as their own. Authors are also responsible for avoiding inappropriate reuse of substantial portions of their previously published work without transparent citation and justification.

4.2 Accuracy and Research Integrity

Authors must present research methods, data, analysis, and results accurately. Fabrication, falsification, manipulation, concealment of relevant findings, selective reporting designed to mislead, and deceptive image alteration are prohibited.

Authors must retain sufficient records to support the findings and should provide relevant data, instruments, protocols, or documentation when reasonably requested during an ethical or editorial assessment, subject to confidentiality, privacy, legal, and contractual limitations.

4.3 Multiple, Duplicate, or Redundant Submission

Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.

Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, reports, theses, dissertations, or previously published materials that could be interpreted as overlapping with the submission.

Secondary publication is considered only when:

• the editors of all relevant publications have approved it;
• the original source is transparently acknowledged;
• the secondary publication serves a legitimate scholarly purpose;
• copyright and licensing requirements are satisfied.

4.4 Ethical Approval and Consent

Research involving human participants, personal data, educational records, vulnerable populations, animals, or other ethically sensitive materials must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

When required, authors must provide:

• the name of the ethics committee or review board;
• the ethical approval number;
• the approval date;
• the informed-consent procedure;
• an explanation when formal approval was not required.

Identifying information must not be published without appropriate consent and a legitimate scholarly justification.

4.5 Citation Practices

Authors must cite relevant sources accurately. Citation manipulation, excessive self-citation without scholarly justification, coordinated citation exchange, citation padding, and the use of fabricated or unverifiable references are prohibited.

4.6 Disclosure of Funding and Conflicts

Authors must disclose research funding, financial support, institutional support, and relevant conflicts of interest. The role of the funder in study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions should be described when applicable.

4.7 Cooperation with Editorial Investigations

Authors must respond honestly and within a reasonable period when the editorial office requests clarification, supporting data, authorship confirmation, ethical approval, conflict disclosures, or other documentation.

Failure to cooperate may result in suspension of peer review, rejection, withdrawal, publication of an expression of concern, correction, retraction, or referral to the relevant institution.

5. Responsibilities of the Publisher

Inovasi Issal Jaya, as the publisher of IJVEA, supports the independence and integrity of the editorial process.

The publisher is responsible for:

• supporting editorial independence;
• maintaining the journal's publishing infrastructure;
• protecting published records from unauthorized alteration;
• supporting transparent correction and retraction procedures;
• maintaining appropriate website and publication archives;
• protecting confidential editorial information;
• preventing commercial considerations from overriding editorial integrity;
• supporting the investigation of credible ethical concerns;
• ensuring that publication fees do not determine editorial decisions.

The publisher must not pressure editors to accept or reject a manuscript for financial, personal, political, or institutional reasons.

When allegations involve the Editor-in-Chief, the publisher should appoint an independent qualified individual or committee to assess the matter.

6. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• fabrication of data, participants, procedures, or results;
• falsification or deceptive alteration of research materials or data;
• plagiarism or unattributed use of another person's work;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• simultaneous submission to multiple journals;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• fabricated, distorted, or unverifiable references;
• undeclared conflicts of interest;
• unethical research involving human participants or animals;
• unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential data;
• citation manipulation;
• review manipulation;
• authorship manipulation;
• misrepresentation of institutional affiliation or credentials.

6.1 Initial Assessment

When suspected misconduct is reported or identified, the editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation:

• falls within the journal's responsibility;
• is sufficiently specific;
• is supported by preliminary evidence;
• requires immediate action to protect participants or the scholarly record.

6.2 Investigation Procedure

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, IJVEA may apply the following procedure:

1. Record the allegation, date, source, and supporting evidence.
2. Preserve relevant manuscript files, review records, correspondence, similarity reports, and editorial decisions.
3. Conduct a preliminary internal assessment without publicly naming the individuals involved.
4. Contact the corresponding author and request a written explanation within a specified period.
5. Request raw data, ethical approval, informed-consent documentation, authorship confirmation, image files, or other evidence when relevant.
6. Consult independent subject experts, statistical reviewers, ethics advisers, or additional editorial board members when necessary.
7. Contact the authors' institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, or funder when the journal cannot independently verify the underlying facts.
8. Reach an editorial decision based on the available evidence and the seriousness of the issue.
9. Inform relevant parties of the outcome, subject to privacy and legal limitations.

6.3 Possible Editorial Actions

Possible actions include:

• requesting clarification or correction;
• requiring additional documentation;
• suspending peer review;
• rejecting the manuscript;
• withdrawing the manuscript from editorial consideration;
• rejecting related submissions when serious misconduct is established;
• publishing a correction;
• publishing an expression of concern;
• retracting the article;
• notifying the authors' institution or funder;
• restricting future submissions for a defined period in serious cases.

Editorial actions must be proportionate to the evidence and severity of the misconduct. The journal will distinguish between honest error, negligent practice, disputed interpretation, and deliberate deception.

6.4 Specific Procedure for Suspected Plagiarism

1. The editorial team examines the location, source, nature, and extent of the overlap.
2. Quotations, methods terminology, references, commonly used phrases, and properly attributed material are considered separately.
3. The similarity percentage is not used as the sole evidence of plagiarism.
4. The author may be asked to explain the overlap and provide relevant source materials.
5. Minor unattributed overlap may require revision and proper citation.
6. Substantial or deliberate plagiarism may result in rejection or retraction and notification of the relevant institution.

6.5 Specific Procedure for Suspected Data Fabrication or Falsification

1. The editor requests an explanation and relevant raw data or supporting documentation.
2. An independent methodological or statistical assessment may be requested.
3. The journal evaluates whether the concern can be resolved through clarification or correction.
4. Where institutional authority is required, the matter may be referred to the authors' institution, ethics body, or funder.
5. A submitted manuscript may be rejected, while a published article may be corrected, subject to an expression of concern, or retracted.

6.6 Specific Procedure for Duplicate Publication

1. The editor compares the submitted or published article with the potentially overlapping work.
2. The editor evaluates similarities in research questions, data, participants, methods, results, conclusions, and wording.
3. The author is asked to explain the relationship between the works.
4. Legitimate extensions of earlier research must provide transparent citation and a substantial new contribution.
5. Undisclosed redundant publication may result in rejection, correction, or retraction.

7. Authorship and Contributorship

7.1 Authorship Criteria

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work. Each author should normally have:

1. contributed substantially to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
2. participated in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. approved the final version to be published;
4. accepted accountability for their own contribution and for addressing questions concerning the integrity of the work.

Individuals who provide administrative support, general supervision, funding acquisition, proofreading, technical assistance, or routine data collection without a substantial intellectual contribution should be acknowledged but not automatically listed as authors.

7.2 Prohibited Authorship Practices

IJVEA does not permit:

• gift authorship, where an individual is listed without a qualifying contribution;
• guest authorship, where a prominent name is added to increase credibility;
• ghost authorship, where a qualifying contributor is omitted;
• purchased, transferred, or commercially arranged authorship;
• unauthorized addition or removal of an author;
• false or misleading descriptions of contributions.

7.3 Changes in Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must be submitted in writing by the corresponding author.

The request must include:

• a clear explanation for the proposed change;
• the written agreement of all existing authors;
• the written agreement of any author being added or removed;
• an updated contributorship statement.

The editorial process may be suspended until the authorship issue is resolved. Authorship changes after acceptance or publication are considered only in exceptional circumstances and may require a formal correction notice.

7.4 Authorship Disputes

IJVEA does not normally determine the legal or factual validity of competing authorship claims. When authors cannot reach agreement, the journal may:

1. suspend the manuscript process;
2. request written statements from all parties;
3. refer the dispute to the relevant institution;
4. await an institutional determination;
5. take appropriate editorial action after receiving reliable findings.

8. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, political, or other relationships could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the research, review, or editorial decision.

8.1 Author Disclosures

Authors must disclose relevant interests, including:

• research funding and sponsorship;
• employment or consultancy relationships;
• stock ownership or financial interests;
• patents, licenses, or commercial rights;
• paid expert testimony;
• personal or family relationships;
• institutional affiliations that may create competing interests;
• academic or professional disputes directly related to the work.

When no relevant conflict exists, authors should include a statement declaring that they have no known competing interests.

8.2 Reviewer Disclosures

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts before accepting an assignment. If a conflict becomes apparent during review, the reviewer must notify the editor and discontinue the review when impartial assessment is not possible.

8.3 Editor Disclosures

Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a relevant conflict. Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor.

8.4 Undisclosed Conflicts

When an undisclosed conflict is discovered, the journal will assess:

• the nature and seriousness of the conflict;
• whether it affected the research or editorial decision;
• whether disclosure would have been material to readers;
• whether correction, reassessment, or retraction is necessary.

The response may include a corrected disclosure statement, renewed peer review, editorial reassessment, expression of concern, or retraction in serious cases.

9. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

IJVEA is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Post-publication notices will be linked to the original article and will explain the reason for the action as transparently as possible.

9.1 Corrections

A correction may be published when an error affects the accuracy, interpretation, metadata, attribution, or presentation of the article but does not invalidate its principal findings.

Examples include:

• incorrect author affiliation;
• omitted contributor information;
• minor data or calculation errors;
• incorrect figure labels;
• reference errors;
• incomplete conflict-of-interest disclosure;
• production or typesetting errors.

Correction notices will identify the original article, describe the change, state who initiated the correction, and indicate the date of publication.

9.2 Retractions

An article may be retracted when its findings are unreliable or when serious ethical violations substantially undermine the integrity of the publication.

Grounds for retraction may include:

• fabricated or falsified data;
• substantial plagiarism;
• redundant publication without legitimate justification;
• serious methodological or analytical error that invalidates the findings;
• unethical research;
• unauthorized use of confidential material;
• fraudulent authorship or peer-review manipulation;
• serious undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• other misconduct that makes the article unreliable.

A retraction notice should:

1. be clearly identified as a retraction;
2. be linked to the retracted article;
3. identify the article being retracted;
4. state the reason for retraction;
5. identify who is retracting the article;
6. distinguish misconduct from honest error where possible;
7. remain permanently accessible.

The original article will normally remain accessible for transparency but will be clearly marked as retracted. Removal of the full text is considered only when continued availability creates a serious legal, privacy, safety, or ethical risk.

9.3 Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when:

• there is credible evidence of a serious problem;
• the investigation remains incomplete;
• the authors' institution has not produced a timely conclusion;
• available evidence is inconclusive;
• readers should be alerted while further assessment continues.

An expression of concern is not a final determination of misconduct. It may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, or notice explaining that the concern has been resolved.

9.4 Article Withdrawal Before Publication

Authors may request withdrawal before publication by submitting a written explanation signed or approved by all authors. The editor will assess whether withdrawal is appropriate.

A manuscript may also be administratively withdrawn when authors fail to respond for an extended period, when duplicate submission is confirmed, or when serious ethical concerns prevent further consideration.

10. Complaints and Appeals

10.1 Editorial Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, ethical, or interpretive error affected the outcome.

An appeal must:

• be submitted in writing;
• identify the manuscript title and submission reference;
• explain the specific basis of the appeal;
• respond clearly to the relevant editorial or reviewer comments;
• provide supporting evidence when applicable;
• remain professional and respectful.

General disagreement with reviewer opinion or dissatisfaction with rejection is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for appeal.

10.2 Appeal Procedure

1. The editorial office records and acknowledges the appeal.
2. The appeal is initially checked to determine whether it presents a substantive basis for reconsideration.
3. When appropriate, the manuscript and appeal may be evaluated by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.
4. Additional expert review may be requested when the appeal concerns technical or methodological issues.
5. The journal communicates the outcome and reasons to the author.

Acceptance of an appeal for consideration does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

10.3 Complaints

Complaints may concern:

• editorial conduct;
• reviewer conduct;
• publication delay;
• confidentiality;
• conflicts of interest;
• discrimination or inappropriate communication;
• failure to follow stated journal procedures;
• published content or research-integrity concerns.

Complaints should include:

• the complainant's name and contact information;
• a clear description of the issue;
• relevant dates and manuscript information;
• supporting documents or correspondence;
• the outcome sought by the complainant.

10.4 Independent Handling

A complaint involving an editor must be handled by another editor or an independent individual. A complaint involving the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to the publisher or an independent committee.

Individuals directly involved in the matter should not make the final determination.

10.5 Communication and Confidentiality

Complaints and appeals will be handled confidentially and shared only with individuals who need the information to assess the matter. The journal will provide a response within a reasonable period, although complex cases may require additional time.

10.6 Submission of Complaints or Appeals