Ethics Statement

LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal is a scholarly publication published by the Faculty of Syariah and Law at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia and is subject to a rigorous peer review process. The journal strives to maintain the highest standards of publication ethics and takes proactive steps to prevent any form of publication misconduct. Authors submitting original articles to LexForensica assure that their work is original and does not contain copied or plagiarized content from other sources, thereby complying with the MyCite Selection Criteria, Elsevier policies and ethical principles, and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

Ethical guidelines for publication in peer-reviewed journals are critical to establishing a coherent and highly respected body of knowledge. The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal reflects the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles are fundamental to strengthening and disseminating the scientific method. Therefore, it is essential to establish a set of ethical standards expected of all parties involved in publication, including authors, journal editors, reviewers, publishers, and the Society.

As the publisher of LexForensica, the Faculty of Syariah and Law at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia takes its role in ensuring ethical practices at all stages of publication very seriously. LexForensica recognizes the responsibility to behave ethically and comply with other relevant obligations.

The Responsibilities of Authors

In order to maintain the integrity and quality of research publications, authors are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines in all stages of their work. The following guidelines outline the duties of authors:

1. Standards for reporting: Authors writing reports or conducting their own research are expected to provide an accurate and unbiased account of their work. The data underlying the research must be accurately presented in the paper, which should contain sufficient information and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements are considered unethical and are not acceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention: Authors are expected to provide the original data related to their manuscript for editorial review and should also be willing to make such data available to the public, where feasible, in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo statement and the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases. Additionally, authors must be prepared to keep the raw data for a reasonable period following publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: LexForensica expects authors to produce their own works in their entirety. Utilizing proper citation or quotation is required when using the works and/or words of others, proper citation or quotation is necessary. Plagiarism can take a variety of forms, from representing another person's work as one's own, to copying or paraphrasing significant portions of another person's work without proper attribution, to claiming research conducted by others. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is not acceptable. Authors should only submit original work that is not plagiarized and has not been previously published or is under consideration elsewhere. LexForensica editors may use appropriate software to identify similarities between submitted manuscripts and existing literature. It is not permissible to submit fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate information. All work and/or words from other publications must be appropriately cited or quoted. For more information, please refer to the LexForensica Plagiarism Policy.
4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: In general, authors are advised not to publish manuscripts that describe essentially the same research in multiple journals or primary publications. Such action would be considered unethical publishing behaviour and is not acceptable. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is also deemed unacceptable.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources: LexForensica believes that it is critical to properly acknowledge the contributions of others. Authors are expected to properly cite publications that have had a significant impact on their research.
6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research findings. All co-authors who have made a significant contribution to the research findings should be listed. If others have made a significant contribution to certain aspects of the study, they should be acknowledged or identified as contributors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are listed in the manuscript and that there are no inappropriate co-authors. In addition, the corresponding author should confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agree to its publication.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: It is important that authors disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could affect the results or interpretation of their manuscript. In addition, authors should disclose in their manuscript all sources of financial support for the research project.
8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If an author discovers an error or inaccuracy in his or her published work, he or she is responsible for promptly notifying and cooperating with the LexForensica editor to retract or correct the work.
9. Hazardous Materials: In cases where the research involves the use of chemicals, procedures, or devices that carry risks, it is the responsibility of the author to explicitly state these risks in the manuscript.
10. Protection of Human Subjects: Research involving human subjects should comply with ethical guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki or the Belmont Report. Authors must ensure that the privacy, confidentiality, and dignity of participants are maintained throughout the study. The risk of harm to participants must be minimized, and the benefits of the research should outweigh the potential risks.
11. Protection of Animal Subjects: Research involving animals should follow ethical guidelines such as the Animal Welfare Act 2015 and the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors must ensure that animals are treated humanely and that their pain and suffering are minimized. Animals should be housed in a comfortable and safe environment and have access to food and water.

The Responsibilities of Editors

1. Fair Play: In evaluating manuscripts, editors must commit to fair play by evaluating the intellectual content of submissions without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, ethnicity, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality: In accordance with publication ethics, the editor and all editorial board members are bound by strict confidentiality and should not disclose any information concerning a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as deemed appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: An editor may use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for his or her own research only with the explicit written permission of the author.
4. Publication Decisions: The LexForensica editorial board holds the responsibility of determining the articles that qualify for publication after a thorough review process. The decision must be based on the significance of the research to readers and researchers and on its validation. In making this decision, the Editorial Board must adhere to the journal's policies and legal obligations regarding libel, plagiarism, and copyright infringement. Collaboration with other editors or reviewers may be sought to facilitate the decision-making process.
5. Review of Manuscripts: The editor is responsible for assessing the originality of each manuscript submitted. The editor should establish and use a fair and appropriate peer review process. The peer review procedures should be clearly explained to authors and indicate which parts of the journal will be subject to review. The editor should select reviewers who have the expertise required for the manuscripts and avoid reviewers with potential conflicts of interest.

The Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: The peer review process assists the editor in deciding which manuscripts to publish and helps authors to improve the quality of their work through feedback from experts in the field.
2. Promptness: If a selected peer reviewer feels that he or she does not have the necessary qualifications to evaluate the research of a manuscript or will not be able to complete the review in a timely manner, he or she should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
3. Standards of Objectivity: The review process must be conducted objectively and without personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for review must be considered confidential. It is imperative that these documents not be disclosed to or discussed with unauthorized persons unless permitted by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Any confidential information or concepts obtained during the peer review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Peer reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.
6. Source Acknowledgement: Reviewers must acknowledge any relevant published work not cited by the authors. If the reviewer points out an observation, derivation, or argument that has previously been reported, they must cite the appropriate source. If a reviewer is aware of substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published work, they must notify the LexForensica editor.

Ethics on Post Publication

Amendments: Authors may request modifications to their published works for various reasons. These changes can fall into one of four categories: Erratum, Corrigendum, Retraction, or Addendum.

• Erratum: This refers to an official announcement of a significant error made by the journal during the article's production process that could impact the scientific integrity of the publication, or the reputation of the authors or the journal itself.
• Corrigendum: This is an official notice of a significant error made by the author(s) that could affect the scientific integrity of the publication, or the reputation of the authors or the journal itself.
• Retraction: This is a formal declaration that invalidates the findings of a published article. All co-authors must agree to the retraction, stating the error and briefly explaining how the conclusions of the article are affected. The decision to retract will consider whether new information, not available at the time of publication, significantly undermines or invalidates the article's main conclusions.

If readers believe a published paper should be retracted, they should contact the Editor-in-Chief. The editor will then consult with reviewers to assess whether the new information undermines the main conclusions of the published article. The article's author will also have an opportunity to respond to the retraction request.

• Addendum: This is an official note that provides additional details or clarifications about a previously published article, often issued in response to reader requests for more information on a particular aspect of the publication.

Penalties and Sanctions

The LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal Editorial Board holds sole responsibility for deciding the appropriate response to instances of plagiarism. Plagiarism is regarded as scientific misconduct and a severe breach of publication ethics. The journal addresses such misconduct seriously and promptly. The Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Boards, and Reviewers are primarily responsible for identifying plagiarism in submitted manuscripts. Given the seriousness of such allegations, confidentiality is essential throughout the review process. Information about the plagiarism allegation, any supporting evidence, and the final decision should only be shared with those involved in the review process.

Authors must adhere to due process and maintain confidentiality in all cases of alleged plagiarism, falsification, or other unethical behavior. Such incidents will be managed according to the Publication Code of Ethics established by the Editorial Board. If unethical behavior is confirmed, the manuscript will be rejected, and if the article has already been published, it will be withdrawn immediately. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, authors may be prohibited from submitting to the journal for a period ranging from one to three years. LexForensica reserves the right to handle issues of misconduct, such as plagiarism and redundancy, on a case-by-case basis.

Penalties and Sanctions

The LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal Editorial Board has the exclusive authority to decide on the appropriate measures to address instances of plagiarism. Recognized as a serious form of scientific misconduct and a breach of publication ethics, plagiarism is taken very seriously by the journal, which commits to addressing it swiftly and effectively. The Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Boards, and Reviewers are the main entities tasked with identifying plagiarism in submissions. Due to the seriousness of these allegations, confidentiality is crucial throughout the investigative process. Only those directly involved in the review process should have access to the specifics of the plagiarism allegations, supporting documents, and outcomes.

Authors are expected to adhere to due process and maintain confidentiality in all instances of alleged plagiarism, falsification, or other unethical behavior. These incidents are managed following the Publication Code of Ethics upheld by the Editorial Board. Should the Editorial Board find evidence of unethical behavior, the affected manuscript will be rejected, and if the article is already published, it will be promptly retracted. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, authors may be prohibited from submitting to the journal for a duration of one to three years. LexForensica reserves the right to assess each case of misconduct, such as plagiarism and redundancy, on an individual basis.

Consequences

To the Authors: If instances of plagiarism, forgery, fabrication, or significant omission are identified within a manuscript, this constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is strictly prohibited. Should such issues arise, editors and/or reviewers are required to report the suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief, who will then take the necessary steps and inform the Editorial Board. The gravity of the infraction may lead to various repercussions for the authors, including formal notification, rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article with a public notice, temporary bans on submissions to the journal, and notification of the authors' institutions for further action.

To the Members of the Editorial Board: The reputation of LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal heavily relies on the integrity and fairness of its Editorial Board members. As such, they are expected to uphold a high standard of commitment to these principles. If any misconduct allegations are raised against a board member, the concerned parties should report these to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will then present the necessary evidence of ethical violations to the rest of the Editorial Board. Should a board member be found guilty of such unethical behavior, they will be dismissed from their position. The sanctions applied will mirror those imposed on authors found guilty of similar misconduct.

Ethical Guidelines for Human Subjects Research

Researchers intending to conduct studies involving human participants must adhere to several ethical requirements, including:

1. Institutional Approval: Researchers must obtain prior approval from an institutional review board (IRB) or an equivalent ethics committee.
2. Evidence of Approval: Researchers must provide proof of this approval when submitting to LexForensica: Forensic Justice And Socio-Legal Research Journal, ensuring that any participant-identifying information is omitted from the approval documents.
3. Ethical Compliance Certification: When submitting manuscripts, researchers must certify their compliance with ethical procedures.
4. Informed Consent Documentation: Researchers must submit a detailed account of how informed consent was obtained, or explain why consent was not obtained.
5. Written Consent for Data Use: It is mandatory to secure written consent from individuals for the use of their data in the research.

Privacy and Informed Consent for Publication

The privacy and anonymity of research participants are paramount. LexForensica respects the right to anonymity and implements all necessary measures to safeguard participant privacy.

Authors must avoid revealing identifying information unless it is crucial to their research. If such information is disclosed, such as patient data, authors must ensure that written consent for publication has been obtained using the consent form provided by LexForensica.

LexForensica rigorously screens all submissions for any potentially identifying information and for proper documentation of patient consent for publication. Submissions lacking proper consent will not be considered for publication.

Should identifying information be discovered post-publication, LexForensica will temporarily remove the article and delete any content that could breach participant privacy.