JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE ETHICS

1. Determining the journal's name, the scope of science, the timeline, and the accreditation.
2. Determining the membership of the editorial board.
3. Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer reviewers, and other parties in the contract.
4. Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review.
5. Applying the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyrights.
6. Conducting the journal policy reviews and presenting them to the authors, editorial board, peer review, and readers.
7. Making the behavior code guidelines for editor and peer review.
8. Publishing journals regularly.
9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainability journal publishing.
10. Establishing cooperation and marketing network.
11. Preparing for the licensing and other legal aspects.

 EDITOR CODE ETHICS

1. Improving the quality of publications.
2. Ensuring the process to maintain the quality of published papers.
3. Leading the freedom to deliver an opinion.
4. Maintaining the integrity of the author's academic track record.
5. Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawal, and an apology if necessary.
6. Owning the responsibility for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the authors' responsibility.                                                          
7. Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer review to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
8. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinions or views of others different from their personal opinion.               
9. Prohibiting defending our own opinion, the author, or third parties may result in a false decision.
10. Encouraging the author to improve the paper until it is worth publishing.

 PEER REVIEW CODE ETHIC

1. Receiving the task from the editors to review the papers and submit the review to the editor to determine the feasibility of the paper for publication.
2. Reviewing the papers on time following the style guide based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the author's legality, conclusions, etc.).
3. Reviewing the papers that have been corrected following the standards.
4. Encouraging the author to improve the papers by providing suggestions, feedback, and recommendations.
5. Maintaining the author's privacy by covering the results of the corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
6. Reviewers must not directly or indirectly review any papers involving the reviewers in their work.
7. Following the guidelines for peer review in reviewing papers and assessing the evaluation form paper given by the editors.
8. Reviewing papers substantively by not correcting the grammar, punctuation, and mistype.
9. Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritizing the benefit of the paper for developing science, technology, and innovation; and comprehending the impact on the development of science writing. 
10. Prohibiting defending own opinion, the author or third parties may make the decision reference non-objective.                                     
11. Upholding the value of objectivity and being free from any influences.
12. Ensuring the confidentiality of findings in the paper until it is published.         
13. Having a broad understanding of the expertise and ability to provide a review of the paper appropriately and correctly.
14. Refusing to do a review if the research is not from the field of expertise. Instead, the peer review should give recommendations to the researcher if there is any other expert on the subjects.  
15. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinions or views of others different from their personal opinion.
16. Refusing to do the review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be reached. If absent, the peer reviewer should notify the editor as early as possible.      
17. The review's results must be presented honestly, objectively, and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are:

1. Accepted without repair
2. Accepted with minor repairs (after repaired by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review)
3. Accepted with major repairs (after repaired by the author, return to the peer review for re-review)
4. Rejected and recommended for other publication
5. Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because, scientifically, the paper is flawed for the community.
6. Giving rejection for the last recommendation as the last choice related to the feasibility of the papers or with an indication of severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
7. Reviewed papers aren’t allowed to be used for personal or third-party interests. Moreover, the use of some of the contents of the reviewed papers must have received permission from the author.

 AUTHOR/ARTICLE WRITER CODE ETHICS

1. The author is collectively responsible for the article's work and content, which covers methods, analysis, calculation, and details.
2. The author immediately responds to the comments made by the peer review professionally and timely.
3. The author should inform the editor if they retract their paper.         
4. The author describes the limitations of the study.                        
5. The author respects the publishers if they demand not to publish the findings in interviews or other media before the publication.
6. The author informs the editor of (a) a paper part of a phased research, multidisciplinary, and different perspectives.                                  
7. The author states that the papers submitted for publication are original, have not been published anywhere in any language, and are not in the process of submission to another publisher.
8. If there is any error in the paper, the author should immediately notify the editor or publisher.