Pulication Ethics

Publication Ethics

Table of Content

Ethical Statement

Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora is fully committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. We regard academic integrity as the cornerstone of every article we publish. As such, we take all necessary measures to prevent and address any form of misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate submissions, and abuse of editorial privileges. The Editorial Board bears the responsibility for ensuring a fair, transparent, and conflict-free publication process. Unethical behavior undermines not only the credibility of scientific work but also public trust in knowledge. Therefore, all parties involved—editors, authors, and reviewers—are expected to perform their roles professionally and in full accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

As a journal that values human dignity and academic inclusivity, Baileo also places strong emphasis on broader ethical concerns, including the protection of vulnerable populations in research and the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly writing. We endorse the ethical principles for research involving vulnerable groups, as outlined by COPE at https://publicationethics.org/guidance?query=populations+are+not+outlined, and we adopt ethical guidance for the use of AI tools as presented at https://publicationethics.org/guidance?query=AI. By submitting a manuscript to Baileo, authors affirm that their work is original, has not been previously published in any form or language, and is not currently under consideration elsewhere.

Publication and Authorship Ethics

All manuscripts submitted to Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora are subject to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process conducted by reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The review process is carried out objectively and respectfully, with careful consideration given to academic diversity and ethical integrity. Evaluation criteria include topical relevance, methodological soundness, significance of findings, originality of thought, clarity of structure, and quality of language. Based on these factors, editorial decisions may result in acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. Authors invited to revise and resubmit their work should understand that acceptance is not guaranteed, and manuscripts that are rejected will not be reconsidered.

Final acceptance of a manuscript is contingent upon compliance with prevailing legal standards, particularly those related to defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Submitted works must be entirely original, unpublished in any form or language, and not under consideration elsewhere. For studies involving vulnerable populations, authors are expected to adhere to heightened ethical standards, including the provision of informed consent, confidentiality protections, and safe, non-discriminatory, and equitable treatment of all participants. We also acknowledge the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic publishing. While the use of AI tools for technical support such as language editing or reference management is permissible, authors must ensure that all substantive analysis, interpretation, and conclusions are entirely their own. Any use of AI in the preparation of the manuscript must be clearly disclosed.

Author Ethics

Authors submitting to Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora must affirm that their manuscript is entirely original and has not been published, in whole or in part, elsewhere. Furthermore, the manuscript must not be under consideration by any other journal at the time of submission. By participating in our rigorous double-blind peer-review process, authors acknowledge their responsibility to engage constructively with reviewers’ feedback. If errors are discovered—either before or after publication—authors are obliged to notify the Editor promptly and provide any necessary corrections or retractions. Candidness in admitting mistakes not only upholds the integrity of the scholarly record but also fosters a culture of trust and continuous improvement in our academic community.

All individuals listed as authors must have made significant, identifiable contributions to the research—whether through study conception, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Each author should be able to take public responsibility for the content of the manuscript, vouching for its accuracy and authenticity. Authors must confirm that all data presented in the paper are real and verifiable, ensuring that findings rest on a foundation of genuine, reliable evidence. In conducting research involving human participants—particularly those from vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, indigenous communities, socioeconomically marginalized populations, or others at heightened risk—authors must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Informed consent must be obtained through procedures that are culturally sensitive, age-appropriate, and clearly understood by participants or their legal guardians. Authors are responsible for protecting participants' dignity, privacy, and welfare, and must ensure that no harm—psychological, social, or otherwise—results from the research. When reporting on such populations, language should be respectful, inclusive, and free from stereotypes or stigmatization.

Any real or potential conflicts of interest—be they financial, institutional, or personal—must be disclosed to the Editor upon submission. Proper acknowledgment of sources is mandatory: every idea, quotation, or piece of evidence derived from others must be properly cited, so that credit is given where it is due and readers can trace the scholarly lineage of the work.

Regarding the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing, authors should recognize that these tools are permissible only for enhancing readability, polishing language, or managing references—not for formulating arguments, interpreting data, or drawing conclusions. Any AI-generated text must be carefully reviewed and edited by the author, who bears full responsibility for accuracy and integrity. Because AI outputs can contain errors, biases, or unsupported claims despite polished phrasing, authors must exercise human oversight at every stage. Transparent disclosure of AI usage is essential: manuscripts must include a brief statement indicating where and how AI tools were employed, thereby promoting openness between authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. AI tools must never be listed as co-authors or cited as if they were human contributors, since authorship implies accountability—something only a human researcher can genuinely uphold.

When it comes to images, photographs, and artwork, Baileo does not permit the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create, erase, manipulate, or otherwise alter figures in a way that could misrepresent original data. Simple adjustments—such as uniform changes in brightness, contrast, or color balance—are acceptable only if they do not obscure, introduce, or remove any information from the original image. If AI-based imaging techniques are an integral part of the research design—for instance, in biomedical imaging—authors must describe these methods in sufficient detail within the “Methods” section. This description should include the AI model or software name, version number, developer, and any algorithms used, allowing others to replicate the approach. Upon request, authors should provide the unedited, raw image files alongside the final, AI-processed versions to facilitate thorough editorial assessment.

Finally, the use of generative AI to produce new artwork—such as graphical abstracts or cover images—is generally prohibited unless authors obtain prior permission from both the Editor and publisher, demonstrate that all necessary usage rights are secured, and provide clear attribution for any third-party content. This ensures that intellectual property rights are respected, and that Baileo upholds its commitment to responsible, ethical scholarship.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers of Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora are required to treat all information related to the manuscripts under review as strictly confidential. Manuscripts must be considered “privileged information” and may only be accessed and used for the purpose of academic evaluation. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, copying, or uploading the manuscript—or any part thereof—to generative AI tools or third-party platforms, as doing so may compromise the authors' confidentiality and, in cases involving personal data, violate privacy rights. This duty of confidentiality also applies to peer review reports; all comments, notes, or recommendations included in draft reports are confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone outside the editorial process.

In conducting reviews, reviewers are expected to act objectively, fairly, and constructively, avoiding personal criticism or attacks on the author's character. All evaluations should be supported by clear and logical reasoning, such as identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, assessing the relevance of the cited literature, or evaluating the novelty of the contribution. Reviewers are also obliged to notify the Editor-in-Chief if they identify any relevant works—such as articles, monographs, reports, or other sources—that have not been cited by the author, to ensure a more comprehensive literature review. Additionally, reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief if they detect substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other publications known to them. Such information is essential to help the editors assess potential duplication or plagiarism.

Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest—whether financial, competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript. Conflicts of interest can compromise the objectivity of the review; therefore, if a reviewer feels unable to maintain impartiality or has any affiliation that may influence their judgment, they are required to decline the review invitation and, if necessary, provide the reasons for their refusal to the Editor-in-Chief.

In light of technological advancements, Baileo also sets clear guidelines regarding the use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in the peer review process. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading the manuscript or their review reports to any generative AI platform for purposes such as information retrieval, language enhancement, or analytical assistance, as this may violate author confidentiality and compromise the integrity of the peer review process. High-quality peer review demands critical thinking and original human judgment—capabilities that cannot be replaced by AI, which is still prone to generating inaccurate, incomplete, or biased conclusions. Reviewers bear full responsibility for the content of their review reports; all statements and recommendations must be grounded solely in human knowledge and expertise.

Meanwhile, Baileo acknowledges the responsible use of internal AI technologies that support editors in pre-review stages—such as plagiarism detection or textual overlap monitoring—provided that the confidentiality of both authors and reviewers is strictly maintained.

Editor Ethics
Editors at Baileo: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora hold full responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript. Their decisions must be grounded in the manuscript’s significance, originality, clarity, and its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope—never influenced by personal, institutional, or financial interests. Editors must ensure that all accepted content upholds the highest standards of academic quality and contributes meaningfully to the field of social humanities.

In maintaining the integrity of the journal, editors are accountable for the accuracy, relevance, and ethical soundness of every article published. This includes a duty to issue corrections or retractions (such as errata) when necessary, and to act decisively upon any indication of research misconduct—regardless of whether the article has been published or remains under consideration. However, such actions must be grounded in verifiable evidence, not merely suspicion. Editors should never reverse or annul prior editorial decisions without substantial justification and must ensure consistent, fair application of the journal’s ethical policies.

Editors must always consider the needs of both authors and readers in their efforts to continuously improve the quality and relevance of the publication. They are also expected to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record by verifying that manuscripts comply with internationally accepted ethical standards—including those related to the protection of vulnerable populations. When research involves children, the elderly, marginalized communities, individuals with disabilities, or others at increased risk, editors must be confident that ethical approval has been obtained and that participants' rights and dignity have been protected throughout the research process.

Maintaining confidentiality is a cornerstone of editorial ethics. Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. Under no circumstances should they upload, copy, or share any part of a submission—including decision letters or correspondence—to generative AI tools or third-party platforms, even if solely for the purpose of improving language. Doing so may violate authors’ rights, breach data privacy, or risk unintended disclosure of confidential content.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in editorial decision-making is strictly prohibited. Editorial evaluation demands human judgment, critical thinking, and contextual understanding—qualities that AI cannot replicate and which, if delegated to machines, may lead to incomplete, biased, or erroneous conclusions. Editors remain solely responsible for all aspects of the editorial process, including the final decision on acceptance or rejection, and all communication with authors. They must not rely on AI systems to guide or replace these essential responsibilities.

Nonetheless, Baileo may employ internal, privacy-compliant AI technologies to support non-evaluative editorial tasks such as plagiarism screening, reference checks, and reviewer identification. These tools adhere to strict data confidentiality protocols and are aligned with responsible AI principles.

Editors must preserve the anonymity of peer reviewers, ensure that review processes are fair, objective, and timely, and make acceptance decisions only when they are sufficiently confident in the manuscript’s merit. Editors must also be aware of any conflicts of interest—whether among authors, reviewers, staff, or themselves—and take immediate steps to manage or eliminate such conflicts to maintain impartiality. If an editor suspects that an author or reviewer has violated the journal’s AI policy or ethical standards, they are obligated to notify the publisher and initiate appropriate follow-up.

References:
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

https://publicationethics.org/guidance?query=populations+are+not+outlined

https://publicationethics.org/guidance?query=AI.