Publication Ethics

The Bulletin of Emerging AI and Media Broadcasting (BEAM) Journal is a peer-reviewed open-access journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher (Pandawan Sejahtera Indonesia). This statement is based on the previous COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the current COPE's Core Practices.

Publication decisions

Bulletin of Emerging AI and Media Broadcasting (BEAM) editor is in charge of deciding which papers should be published. Such decisions must always be motivated by the confirmation of the particular work under consideration as well as its worth to academics and readers. The policies of the editorial board may guide the editors, and they are governed by the legal requirements in existence at the moment regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

Editors should make every effort to guarantee that peer review at their journal is fair, objective, and timely.

Confidentiality

Editors should have processes in place to ensure that material submitted to their journal is kept confidential while it is being reviewed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors should have processes in place to manage their personal conflicts of interest, as well as those of their Associates, writers, reviewers, and editorial board members. To ensure neutral evaluation, journals should have a well-defined method for dealing with submissions from editors, employees, or editorial board members.

Duties of Reviewers:

1. Influence on editorial decisions
   Peer review assists the editor in making editing decisions and may also help the author improve the article through editorial contacts with the author.
2. Expeditiousness
   Should a referee believe they are unqualified to study the research detailed in a manuscript or realize that a timely review is impossible, they should communicate with the editor and opt out of the review process.
3. Unbiasedness
   Reviews should be carried out in an impartial manner, refraining from engaging in personal attacks towards the author. Referees should clearly articulate their perspectives, providing well-founded arguments to support their evaluations.
4. Crediting of References
   Reviewers are encouraged to identify pertinent published sources that have not been referenced by the authors.. A citation should accompany any assert that an observation, derivation, or state that an observation has previously been documented. A reviewer should also alert the editor to any significant similarities or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published material that they are personally aware of.
5. Transparency and Ethical Disclosure
   Peer-reviewed confidential material or must be safeguarded and not taken advantage of for individual benefit. Reviewers ought to refrain from appraising articles in which they have competing, collaborative, or other ties or interrelations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the publications.

Duties of Authors:

1. Influence on editorial decisions
   Peer review assists the editor take editing decisions and may also help the author improve the article through editorial contacts with the author.
2. Expeditiousness
   Should a referee believes they are unqualified to study the research detailed in a manuscript or realize that timely review is impossible, they should communicate with the editor and opt out of the review process.
3. Reporting Standards 
   The standards of reporting in research require authors to present accurate reports of their work and provide an objective debate on its significance. The data utilized in the report must be accurately presented. Research reports should provide enough facts and references to allow others to reproduce the study. Dishonest or purposefully inaccurate statements are considered unethical and inappropriate behavior.
   In addition, review articles and professional publications must be factual and objective, and editorial works in the form of 'opinions' must be explicitly designated as personal views or opinions.
4. Data Retrieval and Storage
   Authors may be requested to offer study results to support the submission in order for editors to evaluate it or to meet the journal's open data guidelines. Authors must commit to make data available to the public whenever possible and to keep the data for several years after publication. For further information on this subject, authors should consult their journal's Author Guidelines.
5. Originality and Source Recognition
   Authors must guarantee that their work is totally their own unique creativity. If authors use the work or words of others, they must quote or cite them properly and seek permission if necessary.
   Always give credit for others' efforts. Authors must cite publications that have had an impact on the work being presented. and offer appropriate context within the broader scholarly conversation. Personal information collected through talks, email, or interactions with other parties should not be utilized or reported without the author's clear authorization in writing.
   Copyright infringement can take several forms, including 'claiming' someone else's work as own, copying or paraphrasing Substantial chunks of someone else's work (without acknowledgment), and claiming research results produced by others. Plagiarism is unethical and inappropriate behavior in any form.
   Therefore, it is important for authors to ensure the authenticity of their work, offer appropriate recognition for the labor of others, and avoid plagiarism in all its forms.
6. Multiple dissemination
   In general, writers shouldn't send a manuscript describing essentially the same work to more than one major publication magazine. Submitting the same work to many journals at the same time is unethical and inappropriate.
   A previously published manuscript should generally not be submitted to another publication for consideration, unless it is an abstract or is a public lecture, academic hypothesis, or electronic preprint. 
   Categorized papers (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) can sometimes be justified in more than one journal, if required conditions are met.. The author and the corresponding journal editors must provide permission for such secondary publishing, which must have the same data and interpretation as the original document. In the secondary publication, the initial reference should be cited.
   Therefore, it is important for authors to adhere to these principles, such as avoiding unethical multiple or concurrent publication. However, there are specific exceptions, such as in certain types of publications, which may be justified if specific conditions are met and agreement is reached with the authors and journal editors.
7. Confidentiality
   Except specific legally binding written consent from the authors of the works engaged in those services, information gained when rendering confidential assistance, manuscript evaluations and requests for grants are not permitted.
   This emphasizes the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of information acquired during the process of manuscript review or grant application. Authors, reviewers, or other parties involved must respect the confidentiality of the accessed information and should not use it without clear written permission from the authors or authorized individuals.
   Therefore, confidentiality of information within the context of confidential services must be upheld diligently and must not be misused or disclosed without proper authorization.
8. Manuscript Creator
   Individuals who made significant contributions to the ide, design, execution, or interpretation of the presented research should be designated as authors of a scientific paper. Co-authors should include everyone who made a substantial contribution.
   Others who made substantial contributions to the study should be acknowledged in this paper's acknowledgments section.
   The responsible author(s) should make sure that the paper lists suitable authors and omits any that aren't. Additionally, all authors have to have authorized the final draft of the work and consented to submit it for publication after having reviewed and approved it.
   Before submitting the work, authors are expected to attentively in evaluation of the authors and to include a complete list of all authors. After the article has been submitted, the Editor will only, under exceptional circumstances, consider the incorporation, removal, or reordering of the authors. Authors must express such requests to the Editor in writing. Any additions, deletions, or reorganizations must be approved by all authors.
   The writers are accountable for the paper as a whole. It is the responsibility of each author to address any concerns regarding the truthfulness or the credibility of any aspect of the work are duly investigated and addressed.
   Therefore, the conclusion emphasizes the importance of determining the appropriate authors based on significant contributions, providing proper acknowledgment to contributors in substantial aspects, the collective responsibility of authors for the paper, and the individual obligations of each author in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the work.
9. The Utilization of Generative AI Technology and AI Assistance in Scientific Writing
   The standard is intended to handle content creators' increasing utilization of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. Its goal is to provide authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors with more openness and direction. Elsevier will monitor developments in this field and make any required changes or improvements to this policy. It is vital to highlight that this guideline only applies to does not address the use of AI tools for data analysis and insight development as part of the research process.
   Authors should only employ generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process to increase the readability and linguistic quality of their work. Humans must supervise and manage the usage of such technologies, and writers must carefully examine and modify the output, as AI can provide outputs that appear authoritative but are erroneous, incomplete, or prejudiced. Authors hold full responsibility and can be held liable for their work's content.
   AI and AI-assisted technologies must be used in papers, and this statement must appear in the published work. Disclosure of such usage encourages transparency and trust among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, as well as adherence to appropriate tool or technology usage restrictions.
   AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be included as authors and co-authors, nor should AI be credited as an author. The authors show obligations and duties that can only be assigned and performed by humans. Each author (co-author) is responsible for investigating and resolving any issues about the correctness or integrity of any piece of the work, and writing necessitates the ability to approve the final version of the work and consent to its submission. Authors must also ensure that the work is original, that the attributed authors are writers, and that the work does not violate the rights of third parties. Authors should read our Publication Ethics policy before submitting their work.
10. Risks and Animals or Humans Involved
    The writers must clearly identify any chemicals, techniques, or equipment that represent exceptional hazards in their use in the report.
    If the research involves the use of animal or human subjects, the authors must include a statement in the publication stating that all procedures were carried out in compliance with applicable laws and institutional norms, and that they were authorized by the appropriate institutional committee. In the manuscript, authors should add a statement showing that written agreement was obtained for investigations involving human subjects. Human subjects' privacy rights must constantly be taken into account.
11. Recognition of Competing Interests
    All authors must state any financial or personal links with individuals or organizations that could be construed as unfairly influencing their work. Conflict of interest is defined as the disparity between an individual's personal interest (competing interest) and their responsibility to scientific activities and publishing, which raises reasonable doubts about whether the individual's behavior or judgment is influenced by competing interests.
    All financial assistance for study implementation or article preparation must be declared, as must the role of sponsors, if any, in the research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, report writing, and decision to submit the article for publication. It should be disclosed if financing sources have no such engagement.
    Employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other support are all examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be reported. Potential conflicts of interest should be revealed early on to ensure transparency.
12. Reporting of significant errors
    If the writer discovers significant flaws or inconsistencies in their published work, the author must contact the journal editor or publisher as quickly as feasible and cooperate with the editor to retract or revise the paper if the editor believes it necessary. If a third party informs the editor or publisher that a published work has errors, it is the author's responsibility to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence if necessary.
13. Image Conformity
    Enhancing, obscuring, moving, deleting, or introducing particular characteristics in an image is not permitted. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or shade of color are allowed as long as they not overpower or remove information from the original image. Image alteration to improve clarity is permissible; however, manipulation for other objectives may be considered a violation of scientific ethics and will be dealt with accordingly.
    Authors must follow the applicable journal's graphical image regulations, as an example, including the original pictures as extra information with the paper or storing them in an approved data vault.
14. Clarity of Clinical Trials
    BEAM promotes openness in clinical trials. Authors for relevant publications are expected to follow industry best practices in clinical trial registration and reporting.