Publication Ethics and Transparency

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to upholding ethical standards, academic integrity, transparency, and accountability in sociological research and scholarly publishing. Its editorial policies are guided by the principles and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), alongside ethical considerations relevant to social science research.

JSR recognizes that sociological research involves complex social relationships, diverse communities, and sensitive cultural and religious contexts. Accordingly, the journal emphasizes responsible research practices, respect for research participants, protection of confidentiality, informed consent where applicable, and the ethical representation of individuals and communities.

These principles guide the journal's editorial and publication processes, from manuscript submission and peer review to publication and post-publication evaluation. Maintaining research integrity is a collective responsibility shared by authors, editors, reviewers, and all parties involved in scholarly communication.

In line with COPE's publication ethics principles, JSR addresses the following areas:

AUTHORSHIP AND CONTRIBUTORSHIP

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) adopts the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), following the ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 standard, to ensure transparency and accountability in authorship. All authors must specify their contributions using the 14 standardized CRediT roles, recognizing their respective involvement in sociological research, including research design, fieldwork, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation. This policy promotes fair attribution of scholarly contributions and responsible authorship practices.

1. Authorship Criteria

At Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR), authorship is determined by significant intellectual contributions to sociological research and the development of scholarly manuscripts. All listed authors must demonstrate meaningful involvement in the research and take responsibility for their respective contributions.

To qualify for authorship, individuals are expected to:

Make substantial contributions to research conceptualization, theoretical development, methodological design, fieldwork, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of sociological findings.
Participate actively in drafting, critically reviewing, or substantially revising the manuscript.
Review and approve the final version of the manuscript prior to publication.
Take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and academic quality of their contributions.
Clearly disclose their individual contributions using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly involvement rather than academic rank, institutional position, supervisory responsibility, administrative authority, financial support, or personal relationships.

Individuals whose involvement does not meet the authorship criteria should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section, where appropriate, rather than included as authors. Such recognition should accurately reflect their contributions while maintaining transparency and accountability in scholarly publishing.

2. Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) implements the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in accordance with the ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 standard. This framework identifies 14 standardized contributor roles to ensure clear, consistent, and transparent recognition of individual contributions to scholarly publications.

JSR recognizes the following 14 CRediT roles:

No.	CRediT Role	Description
1	Conceptualization	Formulation of the central research ideas, objectives, research questions, and conceptual or theoretical foundations guiding the study.
2	Data Curation	Organization, documentation, annotation, cleaning, preservation, and management of research data, including interview transcripts, field notes, survey datasets, and other materials for present or future research use.
3	Formal Analysis	Application of quantitative, qualitative, statistical, computational, or other systematic analytical techniques to examine, interpret, or synthesize research data.
4	Funding Acquisition	Securing financial resources or research grants necessary to conduct the study or support the scholarly publication.
5	Investigation	Implementation of research activities, including fieldwork, interviews, observations, surveys, document analysis, evidence collection, or other relevant investigative procedures.
6	Methodology	Design, development, selection, and refinement of research methods, methodological procedures, analytical strategies, or research models.
7	Project Administration	Planning, organizing, managing, and coordinating research activities, schedules, documentation, and administrative responsibilities throughout the project.
8	Resources	Provision of research materials, datasets, instruments, archival sources, software, equipment, facilities, infrastructure, or other resources required for the study.
9	Software	Development, programming, implementation, modification, testing, or maintenance of software, algorithms, computational models, or coding tools used in research and data analysis.
10	Supervision	Academic oversight, research leadership, mentorship, and supervision of research activities, processes, or team members.
11	Validation	Verification and assessment of the accuracy, reliability, consistency, reproducibility, or trustworthiness of research methods, analytical procedures, findings, and other research outputs.
12	Visualization	Development and presentation of visual research materials, including tables, charts, figures, diagrams, conceptual models, maps, or other graphical representations of research findings.
13	Writing – Original Draft	Preparation and writing of the initial manuscript, including the development of its substantive sections and presentation of research arguments and findings.
14	Writing – Review & Editing	Critical examination, substantive revision, editing, commentary, and refinement of the manuscript during its preparation and publication process.

These roles follow the internationally recognized CRediT taxonomy established by NISO. Individual contributors may undertake more than one role, and the same role may be shared by several contributors where applicable. Authors are not required to fulfill all 14 roles, but their declared contributions must accurately reflect their actual involvement in the research and publication process.

3. CRediT Statement

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) are required to provide a CRediT statement specifying the individual contributions of each author.

The statement must accurately describe each author's actual involvement in the research and manuscript preparation and must be reviewed and approved by all authors before submission.

The CRediT statement may follow the format below:

Author Contributions:

Author 1: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft.

Author 2: Data Curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing.

Author 3: Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing.

Authors should only declare CRediT roles that genuinely correspond to their contributions to the research.

As research activities often involve overlapping responsibilities, a single author may be credited with several CRediT roles. Similarly, multiple authors may share responsibility for the same role.

The CRediT statement serves to clearly document how scholarly responsibilities and contributions are distributed among authors, rather than to establish an authorship hierarchy based on the number or perceived significance of assigned roles.

The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) provides a standardized framework for reporting research contributions and strengthening transparency. It does not independently determine whether an individual qualifies for authorship.

4. Corresponding Author

The Corresponding Author acts as the principal liaison between the authors and the editorial office of Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) throughout the manuscript submission, peer review, revision, production, and publication stages.

The Corresponding Author is responsible for:

Confirming that all listed authors have examined and approved the manuscript prior to submission.
Ensuring that the inclusion and sequence of authors have been mutually agreed upon by all contributors listed as authors.
Verifying that the CRediT statement accurately reflects each author's actual contributions to the research and manuscript preparation.
Facilitating and coordinating communication between co-authors and the JSR editorial office.
Submitting complete, accurate, and relevant information as requested by the editorial team.
Informing all co-authors of editorial decisions, peer reviewers' feedback, and any revisions required during the evaluation process.
Helping address and resolve concerns or disputes related to authorship, contributorship, or other matters concerning the submitted manuscript.

The designation of Corresponding Author reflects responsibility for editorial communication and coordination and does not necessarily imply that the individual has made the most substantial intellectual or scholarly contribution to the research.

5. Changes in Authorship

Following manuscript acceptance or publication, changes to authorship information will generally not be permitted, except where corrections are necessary to address verified errors or publication ethics concerns, subject to editorial assessment and applicable ethical guidelines.

6. Authorship Disputes

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) acknowledges that disagreements concerning authorship and individual research contributions may emerge at different stages of the research, manuscript submission, editorial evaluation, or publication process.

JSR maintains that authorship must reflect genuine intellectual and scholarly contributions rather than academic titles, institutional affiliations, seniority, supervisory roles, administrative authority, or financial support.

In cases of authorship disputes, the journal may require the parties involved to pursue resolution through their respective academic institutions or organizations responsible for conducting or overseeing the research.

The JSR editorial office may assist in facilitating communication between the parties concerned. Nevertheless, the journal will not independently assign or revoke authorship without sufficient supporting evidence or appropriate institutional verification.

When addressing authorship disputes or related allegations, JSR refers to the relevant principles and procedures established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring that such matters are handled fairly, transparently, and in accordance with established standards of publication ethics.

7. Ghost, Guest, and Gift Authorship

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) upholds responsible authorship practices by ensuring that scholarly contributions are accurately acknowledged and represented. The journal prohibits authorship arrangements that misrepresent an individual's actual involvement in research or manuscript preparation.

Ghost Authorship, occurs when an individual who has made a substantial intellectual or scholarly contribution to a research project or manuscript is excluded from the author list without appropriate recognition. Individuals whose contributions fulfill the journal's authorship criteria must be properly acknowledged as authors. Their involvement in the research or preparation of the manuscript must not be deliberately concealed or omitted.

Guest Authorship, involves listing an individual as an author despite their lack of meaningful intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research or manuscript. Authorship must not be granted merely on the basis of academic status, professional reputation, institutional authority, or personal or professional relationships with other authors.

Gift Authorship, refers to assigning authorship as a gesture of courtesy, personal favor, professional reward, or perceived obligation without a corresponding substantive contribution to the scholarly work. Authorship recognition must be based on legitimate intellectual involvement rather than personal considerations, institutional expectations, or professional reciprocity.

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) regards ghost authorship, guest authorship, and gift authorship as violations of responsible authorship practices that undermine research integrity, transparency, and established principles of publication ethics.

8. Acknowledgements

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) allows authors to recognize individuals or institutions that have supported the research or manuscript preparation but whose contributions do not fulfill the journal's authorship criteria. Such contributions may be appropriately acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

Acknowledgements may include, but are not limited to:

Administrative support provided during the research process;
Technical assistance related to research activities or manuscript preparation;
Language editing, proofreading, or other editorial assistance that does not involve substantial intellectual contributions to the manuscript;
Provision of research facilities, institutional resources, or access to relevant research settings;
Assistance with fieldwork, interviews, surveys, observations, or other data collection activities that does not qualify for authorship; and
Other forms of research-related assistance that contribute to the completion of the study without meeting the established authorship criteria.

Where applicable, authors should inform individuals and obtain their consent before identifying them by name in the Acknowledgements section.

Acknowledgements must not serve as a substitute for legitimate authorship. Individuals whose intellectual or scholarly contributions satisfy JSR's authorship criteria must be appropriately recognized as authors rather than acknowledged solely as supporting contributors.

9. Authorship and Contributorship Integrity

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) recognizes the accurate identification and acknowledgment of authorship and individual scholarly contributions as essential principles of research integrity, academic accountability, and ethical scholarly publishing.

To uphold these principles, all authors are required to:

Provide accurate and honest declarations of their individual contributions to the research and manuscript preparation;
Ensure that the authorship list appropriately represents individuals who have made legitimate intellectual or scholarly contributions;
Review and approve the final version of the manuscript prior to publication;
Clearly identify their respective contributions using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT);
Accept responsibility and accountability for the integrity and quality of their individual contributions; and
Cooperate with the JSR editorial team in addressing and resolving legitimate concerns or disputes related to authorship and contributorship.

Any false, misleading, or deliberately incomplete declaration of authorship or individual contributions may be regarded as a breach of JSR's publication ethics policy and may lead to appropriate editorial measures in accordance with the journal's established procedures and relevant publication ethics principles.

10. JSR Policy Statement on CRediT

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) implements the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in accordance with ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 as a standardized framework for ensuring transparency and consistency in the disclosure of individual contributions to scholarly publications.

JSR recognizes all 14 standardized CRediT contributor roles and requires authors to accurately declare their respective involvement in the research and preparation of submitted manuscripts.

The journal applies CRediT as a framework for contributorship transparency and accountability, rather than as a substitute for established authorship criteria. The assignment of CRediT roles does not, by itself, determine an individual's eligibility for authorship.

Through this policy, JSR aims to promote transparency, academic accountability, research integrity, and equitable recognition of scholarly contributions across sociology and related social sciences, particularly in research addressing social structures, social relations, cultural practices, religious life, social institutions, inequality, identity, and processes of social transformation.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to ensuring that its editorial management and scholarly publication practices uphold fairness, transparency, independence, consistency, and academic integrity.

JSR establishes a formal procedure through which authors, peer reviewers, readers, editors, and other relevant stakeholders may raise complaints or submit appeals regarding editorial procedures, peer-review practices, publication decisions, professional conduct, or other matters associated with the journal's scholarly publishing activities.

All complaints and appeals are addressed in accordance with the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, transparency, proportionality, and editorial independence. Where relevant, JSR draws upon the ethical principles and procedural recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Complaints and Appeals

This policy governs complaints and appeals arising from the editorial management and publication activities of JSR, including, but not limited to, concerns involving:

Decisions made during manuscript evaluation;
The implementation and integrity of peer-review procedures;
Suspected procedural irregularities or unequal treatment;
Unjustified delays in editorial handling;
Actual or potential conflicts of interest;
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information;
Professional or ethical conduct of editors and reviewers;
Suspected noncompliance with journal policies;
Potential breaches of publication ethics;
Disputes involving authorship or scholarly contributions;
Research data management, confidentiality, or handling practices;
Suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or research misconduct;
Editorial decisions involving corrections or retractions; and
Other concerns affecting the integrity, accountability, or governance of JSR.

Complaints and appeals must relate to identifiable editorial procedures, journal policies, or publication decisions. They must not be employed as instruments of intimidation, harassment, threats, or inappropriate influence against authors, reviewers, editors, or other participants in the publication process.

2. Complaints

2.1 Definition of a Complaint

A complaint refers to a formally communicated concern regarding the implementation of editorial procedures, the professional conduct of individuals involved in publication, the application of journal policies, or other issues associated with JSR's editorial governance.

Complaints and appeals serve different purposes.

A complaint primarily addresses procedural matters, professional conduct, editorial practices, or policy implementation. An appeal, by contrast, seeks formal reconsideration of a particular editorial decision.

3. Who May Submit a Complaint

JSR accepts complaints from individuals or organizations with a legitimate interest in the matter, including:

Authors;
Corresponding Authors;
Peer reviewers;
Readers;
Editorial board members;
Editors;
Research institutions;
Research funding organizations; and
Other individuals or organizations possessing relevant information or a legitimate interest in the reported concern.

Complaints must be submitted in good faith and supported, wherever possible, by information or evidence that can reasonably be verified.

To facilitate communication and appropriate examination, JSR may request the complainant's identity and contact details.

4. Grounds for Complaints

A complaint may be considered when reasonable grounds suggest that:

Established editorial procedures were not implemented in accordance with JSR policies.
An editorial decision may have been influenced by an unmanaged conflict of interest.
Confidential information associated with peer review was improperly disclosed.
An editor or reviewer may have engaged in unprofessional or unethical conduct.
An individual may have experienced unfair or inconsistent treatment.
A potential violation of publication ethics has occurred.
Authorship or contributorship may have been inaccurately or improperly attributed.
The peer-review process may have been manipulated or compromised.
Plagiarism or duplicate publication may have taken place.
Concerns exist regarding the handling of a correction or retraction.
A publication-related error may have materially affected the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record.
Other circumstances provide reasonable justification for editorial examination.

Where a complaint merely expresses dissatisfaction with an editorial decision without presenting relevant evidence or substantive justification, JSR may classify the submission as an appeal or determine that further complaint proceedings are unwarranted.

5. How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints must be communicated through the official correspondence channel designated by JSR.

Where relevant, submissions should provide:

The complainant's full name;
Contact information;
The title of the manuscript or published article;
The manuscript identification number or DOI, when available;
A clear explanation of the reported concern;
Relevant dates or stages of the editorial process;
Identification of individuals involved, where applicable; and
Available supporting documents or evidence.

If the submitted information is insufficient to assess the concern, JSR may request further clarification or additional documentation.

Anonymous complaints may be examined when they contain sufficiently detailed and credible information to justify meaningful assessment. Nevertheless, anonymity may restrict the journal's ability to obtain clarification or undertake a comprehensive investigation.

6. Initial Assessment of Complaints

Following receipt of a complaint, JSR conducts a preliminary evaluation to establish:

Whether the reported matter falls within the journal's editorial authority.
Whether the concern relates to an identifiable journal policy or editorial procedure.
Whether the available information provides reasonable grounds for further examination.
Whether any individual assigned to handle the complaint has a relevant conflict of interest.
Whether additional explanations should be obtained from the parties concerned.
Whether the case requires referral to the Editor-in-Chief, publisher, research institution, or another competent authority.

When a complaint concerns matters beyond the journal's jurisdiction, JSR may, where practicable, direct the matter to an appropriate institution or responsible party.

An allegation alone does not establish misconduct. JSR will not conclude that an individual has committed an ethical violation or procedural error without appropriate assessment and supporting evidence.

7. Investigation of Complaints

Where the preliminary assessment identifies sufficient justification, JSR may initiate an internal examination of the reported concern.

Such an investigation may involve:

Examining editorial documentation and records;
Reviewing relevant correspondence;
Assessing peer-review reports;
Tracing the manuscript's editorial and decision history;
Seeking explanations from the authors;
Requesting clarification from editors or reviewers;
Evaluating supporting evidence and documentation; and
Consulting independent editors or relevant disciplinary specialists.

Whenever reasonably possible, individuals responsible for examining complaints must be free from conflicts of interest involving the parties concerned.

If a complaint directly concerns the Editor-in-Chief, its examination must be assigned to an independent editor or another appropriately authorized individual.

8. Complaints Concerning Editors or Reviewers

Complaints involving the professional conduct of an editor or reviewer must be examined independently of the individual against whom the complaint has been submitted.

The editor or reviewer concerned must not participate in evaluating or deciding the outcome of the complaint.

When concerns involve a peer reviewer's conduct, JSR may:

Request an explanation from the reviewer;
Reevaluate the content or validity of the review report;
Appoint a replacement reviewer when evaluation remains ongoing;
Exclude the reviewer from further participation in the manuscript's editorial process; or
Implement other appropriate editorial measures.

Where the available information indicates a potentially serious ethical breach, JSR may undertake additional examination and, when justified, refer the matter to the reviewer's institution or another relevant authority.

9. Complaints Concerning Editorial Decisions

JSR distinguishes complaints about editorial decision-making procedures from formal appeals against editorial outcomes.

An editorial decision that differs from an author's expectations does not, by itself, demonstrate procedural unfairness or editorial misconduct.

Editorial judgments may legitimately consider:

Scholarly quality and analytical rigor;
Originality of the research;
Novelty and contribution to sociological knowledge;
Appropriateness and robustness of the research methodology;
Relevance of the research questions and findings;
Alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
Compliance with research and publication ethics;
Assessments provided by peer reviewers; and
Other academically justified editorial considerations.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantial procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of their research, or inappropriate considerations may submit an appeal under the procedures outlined below.

10. Appeals

An appeal is a formal submission through which an author requests reconsideration of an editorial decision relating to a submitted manuscript or published article.

The appeal mechanism is not intended to provide additional peer review merely because an author disagrees with reviewers' assessments.

A valid appeal must present substantive reasons that could reasonably call into question the basis or validity of the original editorial decision.

11. Grounds for Appeal

Authors may request reconsideration when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an editorial decision:

Involved a significant error in the application of editorial procedures.
Was influenced by a substantial misunderstanding of the submitted research.
Overlooked important information already available at the time of the decision.
Was affected by a conflict of interest that had not been appropriately addressed.
Relied on considerations unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly merit or research integrity.
Was materially influenced by factual inaccuracies in a peer-review report.
Could reasonably be reconsidered in light of new, relevant, and verifiable evidence.

Disagreement with reviewer evaluations, requests for alternative reviewers, or an author's belief that their research merits acceptance do not independently constitute sufficient justification for an appeal.

12. How to Submit an Appeal

Appeals must be submitted through the official communication channel designated by JSR, within the timeframe established by the journal following notification of the editorial decision.

An appeal should contain:

The manuscript identification number;
The manuscript title;
The specific editorial decision being contested;
A clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration;
A reasoned response to the assessments or considerations underlying the decision;
Details of any alleged factual inaccuracies or procedural irregularities;
Supporting documentation or evidence, where available; and
Other information directly relevant to the appeal.

JSR may decline to undertake further examination of appeals that express dissatisfaction without identifying substantive grounds for reconsideration.

13. Appeal Review Process

Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately designated editor who was not directly involved in the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

During the assessment, the responsible editor may:

Confirm and maintain the original editorial decision.
Request additional explanations or documentation from the author.
Obtain an assessment from another editor.
Arrange an additional independent peer review when justified.
Revise the original editorial decision when sufficient grounds are established.
Implement other measures consistent with the journal's editorial policies.

The outcome of an appeal must be determined through consideration of relevant scholarly, procedural, and ethical factors.

Submitting an appeal does not automatically result in a change to the original decision or guarantee acceptance of the manuscript.

14. Additional Peer Review During Appeal

JSR may arrange additional independent peer review when the grounds for an appeal indicate that:

A substantial error may have affected the previous editorial evaluation;
A reviewer involved in the original assessment had an unmanaged conflict of interest;
A review report contained a significant factual inaccuracy;
An important scholarly or methodological aspect of the research was insufficiently evaluated; or
Further independent assessment is necessary to safeguard the fairness of the editorial process.

The decision to commission additional peer review rests with JSR and does not constitute an automatic entitlement for every appeal.

Reviewers appointed for this purpose must not receive confidential editorial correspondence or other restricted information unless access is necessary for an independent and appropriate assessment.

15. Appeals Against Rejection

Authors may challenge a manuscript rejection decision when their appeal is supported by substantive grounds consistent with this policy.

The appeals procedure does not replace JSR's established manuscript submission and evaluation requirements.

Where an appeal is unsuccessful, authors may submit a substantially revised version of their research as a new manuscript, provided that it satisfies the journal's submission requirements.

Such a submission will undergo a separate editorial evaluation and will not automatically overturn or invalidate the previous rejection decision.

16. Appeals Against Ethical Decisions

Authors may appeal editorial decisions involving suspected breaches of publication ethics by submitting relevant explanations, documentation, or supporting evidence.

In evaluating these appeals, JSR considers:

The nature and credibility of the available evidence;
Explanations submitted by the parties concerned;
Compliance with the journal's established ethical policies;
The seriousness and potential consequences of the reported issue;
Possible implications for the integrity of the published scholarly record; and
Relevant principles and procedural guidance on publication ethics.

Where suspected research misconduct falls within the investigative authority of a university, research institution, or other responsible organization, JSR may request clarification or await the findings of that institution.

Such institutional involvement does not diminish JSR's authority to implement appropriate editorial measures concerning submitted manuscripts or published articles.

17. Confidentiality

JSR is committed to protecting the confidentiality of complaints and appeals to the extent reasonably achievable.

Information relating to a complaint or appeal will be accessible only to individuals whose involvement is necessary for its assessment, investigation, or resolution.

The journal will avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential information to authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or external parties.

Confidentiality may be restricted where disclosure is reasonably necessary:

To fulfill applicable legal requirements;
To preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record;
To enable an appropriate investigation;
To communicate with a responsible research institution or competent authority; or
To address other circumstances justified by relevant legal or ethical obligations.

18. Conflict of Interest in Complaints and Appeals

Editors and other individuals participating in the handling of complaints or appeals must disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

Any individual whose personal, professional, institutional, or financial interests could reasonably compromise the independence of the process must withdraw from the assessment and decision-making activities concerned.

Where a complaint or appeal directly involves the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for handling the case must be transferred to an independent editor or another duly authorized individual without a relevant conflict of interest.

19. Protection Against Retaliation

JSR prohibits adverse treatment of individuals solely because they have submitted a complaint or appeal in good faith.

Nevertheless, intentionally false allegations, defamatory statements, intimidation, threats, harassment, or deliberate interference with editorial procedures may be addressed under the journal's applicable policies.

The complaints and appeals mechanism must not be exploited to coerce editors, reviewers, authors, or other stakeholders into reversing or modifying legitimate editorial decisions.

20. Outcomes of Complaints and Appeals

Following appropriate examination, JSR may implement one or more of the following measures:

Conclude that the complaint is unsupported by the available evidence;
Resolve and close the case after obtaining sufficient clarification;
Correct deficiencies or improve existing editorial procedures;
Replace an editor or reviewer;
Maintain the original editorial decision;
Reconsider the initial decision;
Refer the manuscript for additional evaluation;
Amend the editorial decision;
Refer the matter to a responsible institution or competent authority;
Initiate further investigation into potential ethical violations;
Publish a correction;
Issue an Expression of Concern;
Retract a published article; or
Take other measures justified by the circumstances of the case.

The journal will determine appropriate action in accordance with the nature, available evidence, and seriousness of the identified concern, ensuring that its response remains proportionate.

21. Final Editorial Decision on Appeals

JSR seeks to ensure that authors have access to a fair, independent, and meaningful procedure for requesting reconsideration of editorial decisions.

After an appeal has been evaluated by an editor independent of the original decision, the resulting determination will ordinarily be regarded as final within the journal's editorial process.

Further reconsideration may be permitted only under exceptional circumstances involving:

Newly available material evidence;
A significant procedural irregularity; or
A previously undisclosed conflict of interest.

Repeated appeals that introduce no new substantive information may be closed without additional evaluation.

22. Complaints and Appeals After Publication

JSR accepts complaints or appeals concerning published articles when the reported issues relate to publication procedures, research integrity, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

Post-publication concerns may involve:

Errors in scholarly findings or interpretations;
Inaccuracies or irregularities in research data;
Plagiarism;
Duplicate or redundant publication;
Authorship or contributorship issues;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
Ethical approval or research ethics compliance;
Research data availability;
Manipulation of peer-review procedures; or
Other circumstances that may compromise the integrity of a published article.

JSR will examine such matters according to their nature, supporting evidence, and potential consequences.

When justified, the journal may issue:

A correction;
An editorial note;
An Expression of Concern; or
A retraction.

All post-publication measures are intended primarily to safeguard the accuracy, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly record.

23. Documentation and Record Keeping

JSR maintains appropriate documentation of complaints and appeals to support accountability, procedural consistency, and continuous improvement in editorial governance.

Records may include:

The date on which the complaint or appeal was received;
The identities and roles of the parties involved, where available;
The nature and substance of the reported concern;
Evidence and supporting documentation submitted;
Relevant correspondence;
Procedures undertaken during evaluation or investigation;
The resulting decision;
Editorial or administrative actions implemented; and
Any subsequent measures or follow-up activities.

These records support consistent case management, institutional accountability, and the ongoing evaluation of the journal's editorial practices.

Confidential information will not be made publicly available unless disclosure is required by applicable law, justified by ethical considerations, or necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

24. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors involved in complaints or appeals are expected to:

Present their concerns honestly, responsibly, and professionally;
Clearly explain the reasons underlying their complaint or appeal;
Submit relevant and verifiable supporting information;
Respect the confidentiality of editorial communications and procedures;
Avoid deliberately providing inaccurate or misleading statements; and
Respect the final determination once the appeals procedure has been completed.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

Evaluating complaints and appeals objectively and fairly;
Safeguarding editorial independence throughout the process;
Identifying, disclosing, and appropriately managing conflicts of interest;
Protecting confidential information;
Ensuring that investigations are proportionate to the concerns raised;
Maintaining appropriate documentation of editorial assessments and decisions; and
Referring matters beyond the journal's authority to relevant institutions or responsible organizations.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

Preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, editorial correspondence, and review-related information;
Provide impartial and evidence-based scholarly assessments;
Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest;
Refrain from using complaints or appeals to exert inappropriate influence on editorial decisions; and
Provide relevant clarification or information when legitimately requested during an editorial investigation.

25. JSR Policy Statement on Complaints and Appeals

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to maintaining an equitable, transparent, independent, consistent, and accountable system for addressing complaints and appeals arising from its editorial and publication activities.

All complaints and appeals are examined on the basis of relevant information, supporting evidence, and established journal policies. Disagreement with an editorial decision does not, in itself, demonstrate misconduct, procedural unfairness, or inappropriate editorial conduct. Requests for reconsideration must therefore present substantive grounds capable of reasonably affecting the original decision.

JSR safeguards the confidentiality of complaints and appeals wherever reasonably possible and ensures that individuals with relevant conflicts of interest are excluded from the evaluation and resolution of the cases concerned.

In addressing suspected violations of publication ethics, JSR may apply relevant principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where necessary, the journal may also consult or communicate with the academic institution, research organization, or other authority responsible for the research.

This policy is intended not only to provide appropriate mechanisms for resolving complaints and appeals but also to strengthen editorial accountability, protect the independence and fairness of scholarly evaluation, and preserve the credibility, reliability, and integrity of sociological knowledge published by JSR.

POLICY ON HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to preserving the credibility, transparency, and integrity of scholarly research and the published academic record. The journal does not accept research misconduct or unethical publication practices that may compromise the reliability of research findings or diminish trust in authors, reviewers, editors, and the broader scholarly community.

JSR addresses all allegations of research misconduct through objective, consistent, proportionate, and properly documented procedures. In examining such allegations, the journal may consult relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where appropriate, JSR may also communicate with the academic institutions or research organizations affiliated with the individuals concerned.

1. Scope

This policy governs allegations of research and publication ethics violations relating to:

Manuscripts undergoing editorial evaluation;
Articles published in JSR;
Authors and research contributors;
Editors and peer reviewers;
Research activities and the communication of research findings; and
The credibility and integrity of JSR's scholarly publication record.

Allegations may be reported by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, research institutions, funding bodies, or other individuals and organizations possessing relevant information or a legitimate interest in the reported matter.

2. Types of Alleged Misconduct

JSR may examine allegations concerning, but not limited to, the following practices:

Fabrication of research data, empirical evidence, or findings;
Falsification of research data, methodological procedures, images, or results;
Deliberate manipulation, selective omission, or misleading representation of research evidence;
Plagiarism;
Self-plagiarism or improper reuse of previously published scholarly material;
Duplicate or redundant publication;
Manipulation of citations or references;
Interference with or manipulation of peer-review procedures;
Improper authorship attribution, including ghost, guest, or gift authorship;
Failure to declare relevant conflicts of interest;
Use of research data or materials without appropriate authorization;
Noncompliance with required ethical approval or applicable research ethics standards;
Violations of research participants' rights, safety, privacy, or confidentiality;
Inappropriate modification or manipulation of research images;
Misrepresentation of research methods, empirical findings, or scholarly sources;
Unauthorized use of research datasets or findings; and
Other conduct that substantially threatens research integrity or the credibility of the scholarly record.

These categories are not exhaustive. JSR may consider other suspected forms of misconduct according to the circumstances of the case, available evidence, and relevant standards of research and publication ethics.

3. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

Reports of suspected research misconduct may be submitted through JSR's designated official communication channel.

Where available, a report should provide:

The complainant's identity and contact details;
The title of the manuscript or published article;
The names of the authors concerned;
The manuscript identification number and/or DOI;
A precise description of the suspected misconduct;
Identification of the relevant manuscript section or stage of the research process;
Supporting documents, evidence, or other pertinent information; and
Additional details that may assist JSR in conducting a preliminary assessment.

Anonymous allegations may be examined when they contain sufficiently detailed, credible, and verifiable information. Nevertheless, anonymity may restrict the journal's ability to obtain clarification or undertake a comprehensive investigation.

4. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, JSR conducts a preliminary evaluation to establish:

Whether the reported matter falls within the journal's editorial authority;
Whether the information submitted provides sufficient grounds for further examination;
Whether preliminary indications suggest possible research or publication misconduct;
Whether explanations should be requested from the individuals concerned;
Whether conflicts of interest could compromise impartial case handling; and
Whether the matter should be referred to another editor, the publisher, a research institution, or another competent authority.

A preliminary assessment does not establish that misconduct has occurred. JSR will not attribute responsibility to an individual merely because an unverified allegation has been submitted.

5. Collection and Evaluation of Evidence

Where an allegation requires further examination, JSR may review relevant materials, including:

The submitted manuscript and its earlier versions;
Editorial records and relevant correspondence;
Available research data and supporting materials;
Figures, tables, graphs, and supplementary documents;
Similarity-checking reports or other screening results;
Peer-review assessments;
Authorship declarations and contributorship statements;
Conflict-of-interest disclosures;
Documentation relating to research ethics approval;
Sources and provenance of research data or materials;
Related scholarly publications; and
Other evidence relevant to the reported concern.

For sociological research, relevant evidence may include interview transcripts, observation records, field notes, survey datasets, archival documents, and documentation of analytical procedures, subject to applicable confidentiality and research ethics requirements.

JSR may seek additional explanations or documentation from authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, or other relevant parties.

Evidence will be assessed impartially and, where appropriate, through consideration of multiple sources rather than reliance on a single indicator or automated screening result.

6. Opportunity to Respond

Individuals accused of misconduct will, where circumstances permit, be afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the reported issue, provide clarification, or submit supporting evidence before JSR implements a consequential editorial measure.

Explanations received will be evaluated alongside the available evidence and will not automatically establish either the validity or the dismissal of an allegation.

Where urgent intervention is required to safeguard the scholarly record, JSR may introduce temporary protective measures before the clarification process has concluded.

7. Involvement of the Author's Institution

JSR acknowledges that universities, research institutions, or organizations responsible for conducting research may hold primary authority to investigate allegations concerning research misconduct.

When reported concerns involve research procedures, data fabrication, falsification, ethical approval, or other matters requiring institutional examination, JSR may request clarification or relevant documentation from the author or responsible institution.

Where justified and legally permissible, the journal may directly contact the institution concerned to communicate the allegation or request pertinent information.

Institutional referral does not relieve JSR of its responsibility to implement appropriate editorial measures when necessary to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

8. Allegations Involving Editors or Reviewers

When allegations concern an editor, reviewer, or editorial board member, individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must be excluded from the examination and decision-making process.

JSR may designate an independent editor or another appropriately authorized individual to manage the case.

Where allegations involve manipulation of peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, or other unethical practices, JSR may take appropriate measures. These may include replacing a reviewer, excluding an individual from the ongoing editorial process, limiting future editorial involvement, or referring the matter to a relevant institution or competent authority.

9. Allegations of Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

Where plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or unauthorized reuse of previously published material is suspected, JSR may examine the relevant publications and supporting sources and request clarification from the authors concerned.

If sufficient evidence substantiates the allegation, JSR may implement measures proportionate to the seriousness of the violation, including:

Rejecting a manuscript undergoing evaluation;
Requesting clarification or correction;
Publishing an editorial notice;
Issuing an Expression of Concern;
Correcting an already published article;
Retracting a published article; or
Implementing other appropriate editorial measures.

10. Fabrication, Falsification, and Data Manipulation

JSR regards allegations of fabricated, falsified, or manipulated research data as serious ethical concerns because such practices may undermine the validity of scholarly conclusions and the credibility of published research.

To assess these concerns, JSR may request:

Relevant empirical research data;
Documentation of data collection procedures;
Records explaining analytical processes;
Information identifying research data sources;
Supporting research materials; or
Additional explanations necessary to evaluate the allegation.

In sociological research, this examination may concern the authenticity of interviews, observations, surveys, documentary evidence, statistical analyses, or qualitative interpretations.

Where substantial evidence suggests fabrication, falsification, or material manipulation, JSR may request a formal investigation by the author's institution and implement appropriate editorial measures concerning the submitted or published work.

11. Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

For studies involving human participants, animals, personal information, or sensitive research materials, JSR may require documentation concerning ethical approval, informed consent, privacy safeguards, and other applicable research ethics obligations.

In sociological research, particular attention may be directed toward the protection of interview participants, research informants, vulnerable populations, and communities whose identities or experiences could be exposed through publication.

When allegations indicate that research proceeded without required ethical authorization or failed to provide adequate protection for participants or research subjects, JSR may request relevant explanations and supporting documentation.

In serious cases, the journal may refer the matter to an appropriate research institution, ethics committee, or competent authority and undertake editorial action consistent with the nature of the concern.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may constitute an ethical concern when the undisclosed interest could substantially influence research conduct, interpretation of findings, peer-review evaluations, or editorial decisions.

JSR may request authors, reviewers, or editors to identify and explain relevant interests.

When an undisclosed conflict is established, the journal may require an amendment to the conflict-of-interest declaration or implement other editorial measures proportionate to the seriousness and consequences of the issue.

13. Confidentiality

JSR will safeguard the confidentiality of cases involving suspected research misconduct to the extent reasonably possible.

Case-related information will be disclosed only to individuals or organizations with a legitimate need for access, including designated editors, relevant authors, reviewers, the publisher, research institutions, ethics committees, or authorized regulatory bodies.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is necessary to fulfill legal requirements, conduct an appropriate investigation, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, or comply with legitimate ethical obligations.

14. Protection of Complainants

JSR will not impose adverse consequences on individuals solely because they have reported suspected misconduct in good faith.

Individuals submitting allegations are expected to communicate relevant information honestly, responsibly, and objectively.

Deliberately false accusations, defamatory statements, intimidation, harassment, threats, or reports intended to disrupt legitimate editorial procedures may be addressed separately under the journal's applicable policies.

15. Interim Editorial Actions

Where an allegation presents a potential risk to the editorial process or published scholarly record, JSR may introduce temporary measures, including:

Deferring an editorial decision;
Postponing the publication of an article;
Temporarily suspending manuscript evaluation;
Replacing a reviewer affected by a conflict of interest;
Requesting additional research data or supporting documentation;
Recording an internal note in the manuscript's editorial history; or
Taking other necessary measures to prevent further harm.

The implementation of temporary measures does not, in itself, establish that research misconduct has occurred.

16. Outcomes of a Misconduct Case

Following an appropriate assessment, JSR may determine that one or more of the following actions are warranted:

Close the case when insufficient grounds exist for further action.
Request additional explanations or necessary corrections.
Rectify an identified editorial or procedural error.
Reject the manuscript.
Require a correction to an article already published.
Publish an editorial notice.
Issue an Expression of Concern.
Retract a published article when justified.
Replace an editor or reviewer affected by a conflict of interest.
Restrict or terminate an individual's participation in editorial activities.
Refer the case to the relevant research institution or competent authority.
Implement other measures proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the identified misconduct.

In determining an appropriate response, JSR considers the seriousness of the concern, the strength of available evidence, the potential consequences for the scholarly record, whether the conduct appears intentional or inadvertent, and whether the identified problem can be adequately corrected.

17. Actions Concerning Published Articles

When suspected misconduct concerns an article already published by JSR, the journal prioritizes the preservation of an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record.

Depending on the available evidence and outcome of the assessment, JSR may issue:

Correction: A formal amendment addressing an identified error that does not compromise the overall reliability of the published article.
Expression of Concern: A public editorial notice indicating significant unresolved questions about an article when the available evidence or ongoing investigation does not yet support a definitive conclusion.
Retraction: Formal withdrawal of an article from the reliable scholarly record when serious errors render its findings or conclusions unreliable or when substantial ethical violations justify such action.

Where reasonably feasible, these editorial actions will be communicated transparently and linked directly to the article concerned.

18. Independence and Conflicts of Interest in Investigations

Individuals assigned to examine allegations of misconduct must maintain independence and impartiality throughout the process.

Where an editor has personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationships that could compromise objective judgment, responsibility for the case must be transferred to an independent editor or another authorized individual.

Decisions concerning alleged research misconduct must remain free from inappropriate pressure exerted by authors, reviewers, academic institutions, sponsors, or other parties lacking legitimate editorial authority.

19. Case Documentation and Records

JSR maintains appropriate records of cases involving suspected research misconduct, including:

The date on which the allegation was received;
The identities of the individuals or organizations concerned, where available;
The nature and substance of the reported allegation;
Supporting evidence and documentation examined;
Relevant correspondence and explanations;
The assessment process and findings;
The editorial determination;
Measures implemented; and
Any necessary subsequent action or follow-up.

These records are retained to support procedural consistency, editorial accountability, and the integrity of the journal's publication practices.

20. Cases Beyond the Journal's Authority

Where JSR lacks the authority or institutional capacity to establish facts requiring a formal investigation, particularly concerning research conduct or institutional procedures, the journal may refer the matter to the author's institution, research organization, ethics committee, publisher, or another appropriate authority.

JSR may await the findings of an institutional investigation when those findings are necessary to determine the appropriate editorial response.

Nevertheless, when the reliability of the scholarly record is at risk, JSR may undertake justified editorial action without waiting for the institutional investigation to conclude.

21. Proportionality

JSR applies editorial and ethical measures in proportion to the nature and seriousness of the reported misconduct.

Minor administrative irregularities or errors that do not compromise research validity or integrity will not automatically receive the same treatment as fabrication, falsification, serious plagiarism, manipulation of peer review, or other substantial ethical violations.

Where supported by available evidence, the journal will distinguish between unintentional mistakes, administrative noncompliance, substantive research errors, and deliberate or repeated misconduct.

22. Fair Treatment

All individuals involved in the examination of suspected research misconduct are entitled to fair and impartial treatment.

JSR will not interpret an unverified allegation as evidence that misconduct has occurred. Equally, the journal will not dismiss credible concerns solely because they involve an author, reviewer, editor, or another individual associated with JSR.

Editorial determinations will be guided by the available evidence, applicable journal policies, relevant publication ethics principles, and the responsibility to maintain the reliability of the scholarly record.

23. Reference to Publication Ethics Guidance

In evaluating and addressing allegations of research misconduct, JSR may consult relevant principles, recommendations, and procedural guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), together with applicable standards of research integrity and ethical scholarly publication.

Where appropriate, the journal may adopt relevant case-handling procedures to ensure that allegations are examined fairly, consistently, objectively, and in proportion to the seriousness of the reported concern.

24. Responsibilities of the Parties

24.1 Authors

Authors are expected to:

Submit truthful, accurate, and complete research-related information;
Safeguard the integrity of research data, methods, and procedures;
Provide explanations or clarification when requested;
Supply relevant supporting evidence or documentation when available;
Declare any relevant conflicts of interest; and
Cooperate reasonably with legitimate investigations into suspected research misconduct.

24.2 Editors

Editors are responsible for:

Examining allegations impartially and independently;
Protecting the confidentiality of case-related information;
Identifying and appropriately managing conflicts of interest;
Providing relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond;
Maintaining adequate documentation of the examination process; and
Implementing or recommending editorial measures proportionate to the circumstances.

24.3 Reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

Preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated editorial information;
Report suspected research misconduct on the basis of reasonable concerns and relevant evidence;
Avoid speculative or unsupported allegations;
Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest; and
Refrain from exploiting information obtained through peer review for personal, institutional, or professional benefit.

24.4 Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR)

JSR is responsible for:

Maintaining an accessible procedure for reporting suspected research misconduct;
Assessing allegations impartially and consistently;
Safeguarding the integrity and independence of editorial procedures;
Implementing measures proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the case;
Communicating with relevant research institutions or competent authorities when justified; and
Preserving the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the published scholarly record.

25. Policy Statement

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to addressing allegations of research misconduct through procedures that uphold fairness, independence, transparency, consistency, and proportionality. The journal does not regard an allegation as proof of wrongdoing without appropriate examination, nor will it disregard credible concerns supported by relevant information or evidence.

Where necessary, JSR may collaborate with academic institutions, research ethics committees, publishers, and other competent authorities to obtain information essential to the assessment and resolution of a case.

The central objectives of this policy are to uphold research integrity, ensure fair and accountable editorial procedures, and protect the accuracy, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record, particularly within sociology and related social sciences.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) acknowledges that conflicts of interest may occur when personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, intellectual, or other interests have the potential to influence, or may reasonably appear to influence, the objectivity, independence, and integrity of scholarly research and editorial decisions.

This policy is established with reference to the relevant publication ethics principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). JSR upholds transparency, appropriate disclosure, impartiality, editorial autonomy, and responsible management of competing interests throughout the research and publication process.

JSR is committed to ensuring that manuscript submission, peer review, editorial evaluation, and publication are conducted fairly, independently, and with academic integrity. Accordingly, all individuals participating in these activities are expected to identify and disclose relevant competing interests and cooperate in implementing appropriate measures to address them.

When an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest is identified, JSR will evaluate the circumstances and determine an appropriate response in accordance with this policy and, where applicable, relevant COPE publication ethics guidance and procedures.

1. Definition of Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when an individual's financial, personal, professional, institutional, academic, intellectual, or other interests could affect, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, their professional judgment, actions, interpretations, or decisions concerning a manuscript or scholarly publication.

The presence of a conflict of interest does not automatically indicate unethical conduct or wrongdoing. Nevertheless, conflicts that remain undisclosed or are not appropriately managed may threaten, or create the appearance of threatening, the fairness and credibility of the research and publication process.

Conflicts of interest may be classified as:

Actual conflicts: Circumstances in which a competing interest directly influences an individual's judgment, decisions, or conduct.
Potential conflicts: Situations in which existing relationships or interests could reasonably develop into a conflict.
Perceived conflicts: Circumstances in which an informed and reasonable observer might believe that an individual's interests could compromise impartiality, even when no actual influence has been demonstrated.

Consistent with COPE's publication ethics principles, JSR considers transparent disclosure and responsible management essential to identifying and addressing competing interests.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to individuals involved at any stage of JSR's editorial and publication activities, including manuscript submission, evaluation, revision, acceptance, production, and publication.

The individuals covered include:

Authors and co-authors;
Corresponding Authors;
Editors and editorial board members;
Guest editors and section editors, where applicable;
Peer reviewers;
Editorial staff and individuals participating in editorial decision-making; and
Other parties whose personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic interests may influence the publication process.

All relevant individuals must disclose interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the independent performance of their responsibilities concerning a manuscript.

JSR expects competing interests to be managed in accordance with the principles of transparency, impartiality, and editorial integrity reflected in COPE guidance.

3. Types of Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest may arise from various circumstances and are not restricted to financial relationships.

Relevant categories include, but are not limited to, the following.

Financial Interests

Financial conflicts may involve:

Employment arrangements or consultancy appointments;
Research grants, sponsorships, or other financial assistance;
Ownership of shares, stocks, or comparable financial assets;
Patents, patent applications, licensing arrangements, or intellectual property rights;
Royalties or other monetary benefits;
Honoraria, speaking engagements, or advisory fees;
Commercial relationships with organizations that may benefit from the research or its publication; and
Other financial interests that could reasonably be affected by the research findings or publication outcome.

Personal or Professional Relationships

Competing interests may arise from interpersonal or professional connections, such as:

Close personal relationships involving authors, editors, or reviewers;
Family relationships;
Close academic partnerships or professional collaborations;
Continuing disputes or substantial professional disagreements;
Direct competition involving academic recognition, research funding, employment, or career advancement; and
Other relationships that could reasonably compromise independent judgment.

Institutional Conflicts

Institutional conflicts may occur when an individual's university, department, research center, research group, or affiliated organization has a particular interest in the outcome of a study or publication.

Examples include:

Financial interests held by an institution;
Institutional ownership of relevant intellectual property;
Partnerships between academic institutions and commercial organizations;
Institutional interests in particular research findings or technologies; and
Situations in which institutional or professional obligations conflict with editorial or peer-review responsibilities.

Academic or Intellectual Conflicts

Academic or intellectual conflicts may emerge when an individual holds a strong professional or personal commitment to a particular theory, methodological approach, research dataset, scholarly interpretation, or competing research outcome.

Examples include:

Direct academic competition within the same research field;
Disagreements concerning originality or priority of scholarly contributions;
Strong advocacy for particular theoretical, scientific, or methodological positions;
Participation in competing research projects; and
Other circumstances that may reasonably interfere with impartial scholarly evaluation.

In sociology and related social sciences, such conflicts may also involve competing theoretical interpretations, methodological commitments, or academic positions concerning particular social phenomena.

JSR recognizes that competing interests may not always be obvious or financial. In keeping with COPE principles, individuals should consider whether a reasonable author, reader, reviewer, or other stakeholder might perceive that a particular relationship or interest could influence scholarly judgment.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

All authors submitting manuscripts to JSR are responsible for identifying and declaring relevant conflicts of interest.

Authors must disclose financial, personal, professional, institutional, academic, intellectual, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the conduct of their research, interpretation of evidence, preparation of the manuscript, or publication process.

Authors are required to:

Declare relevant conflicts of interest when submitting their manuscripts;
Ensure that disclosures accurately represent the circumstances of every author;
Provide sufficient details to enable the editorial team to assess the significance of declared interests;
Revise their disclosures when relevant circumstances change during peer review or before publication;
Identify financial assistance and material support associated with the research;
Distinguish meaningful competing interests from routine academic or professional relationships that do not create a relevant conflict; and
Cooperate with the journal when additional explanations or conflict-management measures are necessary.

These requirements reflect the principles of openness and responsible disclosure promoted by COPE.

Failure to declare a relevant conflict may constitute a breach of JSR's publication ethics policies and may lead to appropriate editorial measures.

5. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement

Every manuscript submitted to JSR must contain a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.

Authors must clearly indicate whether any relevant competing interests exist.

When no conflicts of interest are present, authors may use the following declaration:

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the research, analysis, interpretation, or publication of this manuscript.

Where relevant conflicts exist, authors should identify their nature with sufficient clarity. For example:

Conflict of Interest: Author 1 received research funding from [organization]. Author 2 provides consultancy services to [organization], which has a potential interest in the subject of this study.

Disclosures should provide meaningful transparency without unnecessarily revealing confidential personal information.

JSR may request further clarification or supporting information when the submitted statement does not adequately explain the potential significance of a competing interest.

6. Financial Support and Funding Disclosure

Authors must report all relevant research funding and material support accurately and separately from their conflict-of-interest declarations.

Disclosures must identify support provided for:

Research implementation;
Collection of empirical data;
Software or computing facilities;
Research equipment or infrastructure;
Data processing and analysis;
Preparation of the manuscript; or
Other activities directly connected with the research.

Funding statements should specify the supporting institution or organization and, where applicable, the associated grant number or project identifier.

Authors should also explain whether the funding body participated in:

Research design;
Data collection;
Data analysis;
Interpretation of findings;
Manuscript preparation;
Decisions concerning publication; or
Other stages of the research or publication process.

Receiving financial support does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, relevant relationships between funding organizations and the research must be disclosed transparently.

Consistent with COPE publication ethics guidance, JSR seeks to ensure that readers have sufficient information to understand the role of funding and material support in the production and publication of scholarly research.

7. Conflicts of Interest Involving Editors

JSR editors are required to safeguard editorial independence and base their decisions on the scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Editors must not manage manuscripts when actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest could compromise their impartiality.

Such circumstances may include manuscripts:

Written or co-written by the editor;
Submitted by a close academic collaborator or colleague;
Authored by someone with whom the editor maintains a close personal or professional relationship;
Presenting research that directly competes with the editor's ongoing work;
Involving an institution with which the editor has a significant competing interest;
Associated with the editor's financial or commercial interests; or
Presenting other circumstances that could reasonably call the editor's impartiality into question.

Where a relevant conflict exists, responsibility for the manuscript should be transferred to an appropriately independent editor.

Editors must inform the editorial leadership of relevant competing interests and withdraw from decision-making when their independence could reasonably be questioned.

Confidential information obtained through editorial responsibilities must never be exploited for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage.

These obligations are consistent with COPE principles concerning editorial independence, confidentiality, accountability, and conflicts of interest.

8. Conflicts of Interest Involving Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their independence in assessing a manuscript.

Reviewers should decline review invitations when they:

Maintain close personal or professional relationships with one or more authors;
Have recently collaborated with the authors;
Are directly competing with the authors on substantially similar research;
Possess financial interests connected with the manuscript;
Are involved in significant academic disagreements with the authors;
Have institutional or research-related relationships that may compromise impartiality; or
Believe for any other reason that they cannot provide an objective and independent evaluation.

Reviewers are prohibited from using information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, financial, or competitive benefit.

They must also protect manuscript confidentiality and comply with JSR's peer-review and publication ethics requirements.

These responsibilities are consistent with COPE guidance concerning peer-review integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and disclosure of competing interests.

9. Editorial Independence

JSR is committed to protecting editorial decisions from inappropriate commercial, financial, institutional, political, personal, or other external influences.

Editorial assessments and decisions must primarily consider:

Scholarly quality;
Originality;
Methodological rigor;
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
Research integrity;
Compliance with ethical standards; and
The credibility and validity of the evidence presented.

In the context of JSR, these considerations include the relevance and contribution of research to sociology and related social sciences.

Authors, reviewers, editors, sponsors, institutions, and external organizations must not exert improper influence over editorial decisions.

Financial support for research or journal operations must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, revised, or published.

JSR regards editorial independence as a fundamental requirement of responsible academic publishing and follows relevant COPE principles concerning editorial autonomy and competing interests.

10. Management of Disclosed Conflicts

Declaring a conflict of interest does not automatically justify manuscript rejection, removal of an individual from editorial activities, or a conclusion that misconduct has occurred.

JSR evaluates declared competing interests individually and determines appropriate measures to prevent or minimize their potential influence.

Such measures may include:

Requesting further explanation or additional disclosure;
Reassigning the manuscript to another editor;
Appointing an independent reviewer;
Seeking an additional impartial assessment;
Requiring amendments to the conflict-of-interest statement;
Recording the identified conflict in the editorial documentation;
Publishing an appropriate disclosure alongside the article; or
Implementing other measures necessary to preserve the integrity of editorial procedures.

In determining the appropriate response, the editorial team may consider the conflict's nature, relevance, extent, timing, and possible consequences.

When a conflict raises substantial publication ethics concerns, JSR may consult relevant COPE flowcharts, guidance documents, or other applicable procedures.

11. Undisclosed or Inaccurately Disclosed Conflicts

When JSR identifies a possible conflict of interest that has not been disclosed or has been inaccurately reported, the editorial team may request clarification and supporting documentation from the individual concerned.

Depending on the circumstances, JSR may:

Request an explanation or correction;
Require an amended conflict-of-interest declaration;
Reevaluate the manuscript or editorial decision;
Replace an editor or reviewer;
Initiate further examination when justified;
Publish a correction, Expression of Concern, or another editorial notice following publication; or
Undertake other actions consistent with relevant publication ethics standards.

Where evidence indicates deliberate concealment or misrepresentation of competing interests, JSR may treat the matter as a potential breach of publication ethics or research integrity.

In examining such concerns, the journal may consult COPE guidance and editorial flowcharts and obtain relevant information from authors, reviewers, editors, research institutions, or other responsible organizations.

Where necessary, manuscript processing may be temporarily suspended until the concern has been appropriately evaluated.

12. Changes in Conflict of Interest

Authors, editors, and reviewers must inform JSR whenever relevant competing interests emerge or change during the publication process.

Authors are required to update their declarations if circumstances change between manuscript submission and publication.

Likewise, editors and reviewers must promptly inform the editorial office when a previously unidentified conflict becomes apparent after they have accepted responsibility for a manuscript.

The journal may reconsider the editorial handling of a submission when new or previously undisclosed competing interests are identified.

Such reconsideration will follow this policy and, where relevant, applicable COPE publication ethics principles and recommendations.

13. Post-Publication Conflicts of Interest

JSR will examine conflicts of interest identified after publication according to their nature, seriousness, and possible implications for the published research.

Where an undisclosed relevant conflict is established, the journal may issue an appropriate correction, clarification, editorial notice, or other post-publication measure.

An undisclosed conflict does not automatically invalidate the findings of a published study. Nevertheless, further examination may be necessary when the conflict raises substantive questions about the research's integrity, interpretation, or reliability.

Where appropriate, JSR may request information from the authors' institutions or other responsible organizations.

In determining suitable post-publication measures, the journal may consult COPE guidance and flowcharts concerning corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and related publication ethics matters.

14. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Information

JSR handles information concerning competing interests responsibly and uses such information primarily to identify, evaluate, and manage potential conflicts.

The journal distinguishes between disclosures necessary for public transparency and information that must remain confidential because of legitimate privacy, legal, or ethical considerations.

Where appropriate, relevant conflict-of-interest declarations may be published alongside the article to provide readers with sufficient contextual information.

Confidential information will be managed in accordance with JSR's editorial and peer-review confidentiality policies and relevant COPE principles concerning responsible editorial practice.

15. Relationship Between Conflict of Interest and Research Integrity

JSR considers the transparent identification and disclosure of competing interests an essential element of responsible research and scholarly publication.

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals participating in publication activities must not conceal relevant interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their professional judgment.

Appropriate disclosure enables the journal and its readers to evaluate scholarly research and editorial procedures with a clearer understanding of potentially relevant circumstances.

Accordingly, disclosure serves as a mechanism for transparency and responsible management rather than automatically indicating unethical conduct.

JSR applies this approach in accordance with the broader publication ethics principles promoted by COPE, particularly transparency, accountability, editorial independence, and protection of the integrity of the scholarly record.

16. JSR Policy Statement on Conflicts of Interest

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) requires authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in its publication activities to declare relevant competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their professional responsibilities, judgments, or decisions.

JSR acknowledges that conflicts of interest may arise from financial, personal, professional, institutional, academic, intellectual, or other relationships relevant to scholarly publication.

The existence of a competing interest does not automatically constitute misconduct. Nevertheless, failure to disclose relevant interests, deliberate concealment, or inaccurate reporting may compromise the credibility and integrity of scholarly research and may result in appropriate editorial measures.

JSR identifies, evaluates, and manages conflicts of interest in accordance with this policy and relevant ethical principles and guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Where competing interests give rise to broader publication ethics concerns, the journal may apply relevant COPE guidance, flowcharts, and procedural recommendations, as appropriate to the circumstances.

Through this policy, JSR seeks to uphold transparency, editorial independence, impartiality, accountability, responsible disclosure, and research integrity throughout the research and publication process, particularly in sociology and related social sciences, including studies of social structures, institutions, inequality, cultural practices, religious life, identity, social relations, and social transformation.

JSR recognizes COPE as an important reference framework for responsible scholarly publishing and will consider applicable COPE recommendations when addressing complex, unresolved, or potentially serious conflicts of interest and related editorial concerns.

DATA SHARING AND REPRODUCIBILITY POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to upholding transparency, research integrity, and reproducibility in scholarly publications. This policy is guided by relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning responsible data sharing and the verification and reproducibility of research findings.

1. Data Availability: Authors are encouraged to make research data, analytical materials, coding procedures, research instruments, and other supporting documentation accessible whenever feasible. These materials may include survey datasets, interview data, observation records, analytical scripts, or other evidence supporting the reported findings. Every published article must include a Data Availability Statement indicating whether the underlying research data and supporting materials can be accessed.

2. Data Availability Statement: Authors must clearly indicate whether the data and supporting research materials are available, identify where they may be obtained, and explain any conditions or limitations governing their accessibility.

3. Restrictions on Data Access: Public disclosure of research data is not required when legitimate ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, data-use agreement, or other restrictions prevent their release. This is particularly relevant to sociological research involving sensitive personal information, confidential interviews, or vulnerable research participants. Where access is restricted, authors must explain the justification and, whenever possible, provide information about the procedures through which access may be requested.

4. Reproducibility: Authors are expected to describe their research methods and analytical procedures with sufficient clarity and detail to enable other researchers to understand, assess, verify, and, where feasible, reproduce the study. Depending on the research design, relevant information may include data collection procedures, sampling strategies, research instruments, coding frameworks, analytical techniques, datasets, software and version details, analytical scripts, and methodological parameters.

5. Data Verification and Integrity: JSR editors may request access to relevant research data, analytical documentation, source code, or other supporting materials when necessary to assess the credibility and accuracy of reported findings. If substantial concerns emerge regarding the authenticity, integrity, or reliability of research data, JSR may undertake an appropriate examination and implement editorial measures consistent with its publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

6. JSR Policy Statement on Data Sharing and Reproducibility: Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) promotes the responsible availability and sharing of research data and supporting materials to strengthen scholarly transparency, accountability, and reproducibility. The journal recognizes that data sharing must remain consistent with applicable ethical, legal, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and research participant protection requirements.

ETHICAL OVERSIGHT POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to upholding ethical integrity and responsible practices throughout the research and scholarly publication process. This policy is developed in accordance with the relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices concerning ethical oversight in academic publishing.

1. Ethical Conduct of Research: Authors are responsible for conducting their studies in compliance with relevant ethical principles, legal provisions, regulatory frameworks, and institutional policies. When formal ethical clearance is necessary, researchers must secure approval from a recognized institutional review board, research ethics committee, or other authorized body before commencing their research activities.

2. Research Involving Human Participants: Studies involving human participants, including interviews, surveys, participant observation, and other forms of sociological fieldwork, must adhere to applicable research ethics requirements. Informed consent must be obtained whenever required. Authors are responsible for safeguarding participants' privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and fundamental rights. Identifiable personal information or sensitive data must not be disclosed without appropriate permission and consent.

3. Vulnerable Populations: Research involving vulnerable individuals or communities must incorporate adequate protective measures to preserve their rights, well-being, privacy, and dignity. Where applicable, researchers must obtain approval from the relevant ethics committee and secure appropriate informed consent before involving such individuals or groups in the study.

4. Research Involving Animals: Studies involving animals must observe applicable institutional, national, and international ethical requirements governing animal welfare, care, and research use. Where ethical authorization is required, authors must obtain approval from the appropriate ethics committee or competent authority and provide relevant documentation of that approval.

5. Confidential and Sensitive Data: Authors must manage confidential, personal, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive research information responsibly throughout its collection, processing, storage, analysis, and reporting. All data management practices must comply with applicable privacy legislation, research ethics requirements, and relevant data-use agreements.

6. Consent for Publication: Authors must secure appropriate consent before publishing photographs, identifiable personal information, interview materials, or other content that may reveal an individual's identity. Where applicable, such consent must be obtained directly from the individual concerned or from a legally authorized representative.

7. Ethical Compliance and Editorial Action: JSR reserves the right to request documentation demonstrating ethical approval, informed consent, authorization to use research data, or other evidence of ethical compliance when necessary. If concerns regarding research ethics arise, the editorial team may seek clarification, require appropriate corrective measures, temporarily suspend manuscript processing, reject the submission, or undertake justified post-publication action.

8. JSR Policy Statement on Ethical Oversight: Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) requires authors to conduct research responsibly and obtain appropriate ethical oversight whenever applicable. The journal adheres to relevant COPE principles on ethical oversight and may refer serious ethical concerns to the authors' affiliated institutions, research ethics committees, or other competent authorities when necessary

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to recognizing and safeguarding intellectual property rights associated with scholarly manuscripts and published research. This policy is guided by relevant publication ethics principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and all other individuals involved in the journal's editorial and publication activities.

1. Intellectual Property Ownership: Authors are responsible for ensuring that all materials incorporated into their submissions, including research data, interview transcripts, survey instruments, analytical frameworks, software, images, tables, methodological tools, and other scholarly resources, do not violate the intellectual property rights of third parties.

Publication in JSR does not automatically transfer ownership of intellectual property associated with the research when such rights legally remain with the authors or other legitimate rights holders.

2. Third-Party Materials: Authors must secure the necessary permissions or authorizations before incorporating copyrighted or otherwise protected materials belonging to third parties. Such materials may include photographs, illustrations, tables, research datasets, interview materials, software, source code, or other intellectual works.

All third-party materials must be appropriately acknowledged and attributed in accordance with the permissions granted, applicable licenses, or other relevant conditions governing their use.

3. Data, Software, and Code: Authors must ensure that their use of research datasets, analytical software, source code, computational models, algorithms, and other digital research resources complies with applicable intellectual property regulations and licensing requirements.

When the accessibility or use of these resources is subject to restrictions, authors should clearly identify the relevant limitations and, whenever feasible, provide sufficient information to enable readers to understand, verify, or reproduce the research through lawful means.

4. Author Responsibilities: Authors are required to ensure that their submitted manuscripts and accompanying materials may be lawfully published, do not infringe the intellectual property rights of others, and have obtained all necessary permissions for materials owned by third parties.

Any allegations, disputes, or claims concerning intellectual property infringement associated with author-supplied materials may be examined and addressed by JSR under its established publication ethics policies.

5. Handling Alleged Infringement: When JSR receives a report or allegation concerning possible intellectual property infringement, the editorial team may request clarification, documentation of ownership, or evidence of the necessary permissions. The journal may subsequently conduct an appropriate editorial assessment and determine the measures required to address the concern.

For articles that have already been published, such measures may include issuing a correction, removing infringing content, publishing an Expression of Concern, or retracting the article when justified by the seriousness and consequences of the infringement.

JSR Policy Statement on Intellectual Property

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to protecting the intellectual property rights of authors and third parties while promoting the lawful, ethical, and responsible use of scholarly materials. Authors are accountable for ensuring compliance with applicable intellectual property rights, licensing conditions, and permission requirements concerning all materials included in their submissions.

JSR will examine and address allegations of intellectual property violations in accordance with relevant principles of transparency, academic integrity, accountability, and ethical scholarly publishing, as reflected in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSIONS POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) supports open academic dialogue and critical scholarly engagement with articles that have been published in the journal. To facilitate this process, JSR provides a mechanism through which readers and researchers may raise questions, offer critical assessments, and contribute scholarly responses to published research. This policy is informed by relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning transparency, responsible academic discourse, and the preservation of the scholarly record.

1. Post-Publication Discussion: Readers, researchers, and members of the academic community may submit scholarly comments, critical evaluations, requests for clarification, or responses addressing articles previously published in JSR. Such contributions must engage with the academic content of the article, including its arguments, theoretical perspectives, research methods, empirical evidence, or interpretation of findings. All submissions are expected to be objective, constructive, and supported by sound academic reasoning or relevant evidence.

2. Editorial Assessment: The JSR editorial team will evaluate each submitted contribution based on its relevance, scholarly merit, and appropriateness for publication. Editors may request revisions to improve the clarity or academic quality of the submission and may arrange additional peer review when considered necessary.

Contributions that are unrelated to the scholarly issues under discussion, contain personal attacks, lack adequate supporting arguments or evidence, or include potentially defamatory statements may be declined or returned for revision.

3. Response from Original Authors: Authors whose published work becomes the subject of scholarly discussion will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Where appropriate, JSR may publish the critical commentary together with the authors' response and link both contributions to the original article, enabling readers to consider different scholarly perspectives within an informed and balanced academic discussion.

4. Corrections and Post-Publication Actions: When scholarly discussion reveals an error, inconsistency, or other concern that could compromise the accuracy or reliability of a published article, JSR may undertake appropriate editorial measures. Depending on the seriousness and implications of the identified issue, these measures may include publishing a Correction, issuing an Expression of Concern, or implementing a Retraction, in accordance with relevant COPE publication ethics principles.

5. Editorial Independence: Decisions regarding the acceptance or publication of scholarly critiques, author responses, corrections, and other post-publication notices are made independently by the JSR editorial team. Such decisions must be guided by scholarly merit, research integrity, and the responsibility to maintain a reliable academic record, without inappropriate influence from personal relationships, financial considerations, or commercial interests.

JSR Policy Statement on Post-Publication Discussions

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to maintaining an accessible, transparent, and constructive process for scholarly dialogue following publication. The journal evaluates academic critiques and responses impartially and provides the authors of the original articles with an appropriate opportunity to address substantive concerns.

Where post-publication discussions identify issues that may undermine the accuracy, credibility, or reliability of published research, JSR will implement proportionate editorial measures in accordance with relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles and guidance. Through this policy, JSR seeks to encourage responsible scholarly debate, strengthen academic accountability, and safeguard the integrity of research published in sociology and related social sciences.

CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS POLICY

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is dedicated to preserving the accuracy, credibility, transparency, and integrity of the published scholarly record. This policy is established with reference to the relevant principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning the correction and retraction of scholarly publications.

1. Corrections

JSR may issue a Correction when an error is discovered in a published article that requires formal amendment but does not substantially compromise the reliability of its principal research findings or conclusions.

Corrections may address inaccuracies introduced by authors or errors arising during editorial handling, manuscript preparation, or publication production. Each Correction will clearly indicate the information being amended and, where applicable, maintain the original publication record while providing a transparent account of the changes made.

2. Retractions

JSR may retract a published article when convincing evidence demonstrates that the article is substantially unreliable or when serious violations of research integrity or publication ethics are established.

Circumstances that may justify retraction include:

Research data or findings rendered unreliable by substantial errors, fabrication, or falsification;
Plagiarism or duplicate and redundant publication;
Use of research materials or data without appropriate authorization;
Copyright violations or other serious legal infringements;
Research conducted in violation of applicable ethical requirements;
Significant manipulation or compromise of the peer-review process; or
A substantial undisclosed conflict of interest that materially influenced the interpretation or recommendations of the research.

A retraction may arise from unintentional errors as well as deliberate research or publication misconduct. Its principal purpose is to correct the academic record and protect its reliability, rather than to serve solely as a disciplinary measure against authors.

3. Retraction Notice

Every retracted article will be accompanied by a publicly available Retraction Notice that:

Provides a direct link to the article concerned;
Clearly identifies the publication and indicates its retracted status;
Explains the reasons for retraction using objective and factual language;
Identifies the individual or party responsible for initiating or issuing the retraction; and
Remains freely accessible to readers.

Retracted articles will remain part of JSR's publication archives and will not be inappropriately deleted or concealed from the scholarly record. Their Retracted status will be prominently indicated to ensure that readers understand that the publication should no longer be regarded as a reliable scholarly source.

4. Editorial Assessment

Decisions regarding the publication of a Correction or Retraction will be determined by JSR through an assessment of the available evidence and the extent to which the identified concern affects the accuracy, reliability, or integrity of the published article.

Where necessary, the editorial team may request explanations, supporting documentation, or additional information from authors, reviewers, affiliated research institutions, or other relevant parties.

When substantial concerns regarding a published article remain unresolved and are subject to further examination, JSR may issue an Expression of Concern to inform readers of the potential problems while the assessment or investigation is ongoing.

JSR Policy Statement on Corrections and Retractions

Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) is committed to implementing corrections and retractions whenever necessary to safeguard the accuracy, transparency, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly record. All post-publication editorial measures will be determined according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the identified concerns, and their implications for the reliability of published research.

In implementing this policy, JSR refers to relevant principles and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure that corrections, retractions, and other post-publication actions are conducted responsibly, fairly, and transparently.

Publication Ethics and Transparency

new-accredited-sinta-3

new-author-information-pack

new-policies

new-indexed-by

new-stats-counter

new-sinta-certificate

new-citedness-2026

Citedness

new-association-with