This ethics statement applies for Jurnal Pengajian Media Malaysia (JPMM); published by Department of Media and Communication Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Malaya. This ethics statement has been adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that covers the code of ethics for JPMM. This ethics statement works as a guideline for any party involved in the scientific publishing of JPMM. We aim to develop good practice of ethical scientific publications.

There is no definite definition of authorship; that it varies across disciplines. JPMM recommends the authorship is awarded based on every author's intellectual contributions to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, and writing. In the event of absentee of contribution, the individual should not receive any credit for an authorship of the scientific research paper. Each author is encouraged to confirm their authorship by providing an ORCID (Open Researcher Contributor ID).

All authors are responsible to the content of the scientific article; (1) original work; (2) the manuscript submitted is not under review by other journal or publication; (3) the manuscript submitted has not been published in other journal or publication; (4) to obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources, that any breach of copyright laws will result in rejection of the submitted material or its retraction after publication; (5) responsible to the accuracy of the data in the scientific article, such case should be informed to the Chief Editor for correction; (6) liable for any positive or negative outcome of the scientific paper; (7) responsible to obtain and report an approval from any relevant ethics board (if required for the study conducted); (8) report any contribution of any other party, especially the fund contributor; (9) to declare any potential conflict of interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process; (10) to obtain an informed consent from the subjects of the research to publish the data; (11) to cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice or to retract the published article in JPMM, where this is deemed necessary.

Any authorship dispute will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Peer review
All submitted manuscripts to JPMM are subject to initial appraisal by the Editors, and if found suitable for further consideration, to be double blind peer reviewed. Peer reviewers are carefully selected by editors according to their expertise in area of the submitted manuscript. Their opinion and review of the submitted manuscripts are deemed useful in improving the manuscript. JPMM practices double blind peer review where the identity of both reviewers and authors are not disclosed to protect the review transparency. Authors may suggest any expert in the field of their submitted manuscript, however JPMM is not obligated to assign the reviewer suggested for their manuscript. The review’ recommendations are taken into consideration by the Editors before the publication and revision decisions. Comments and feedbacks are sent to the authors, and authors will be notified of the journal decision (accept, accept with revisions, reject). The review process takes up to 4-5 months. Although under certain circumstances the review process may be longer than 5months or get rejected after revision(s). All new submissions to JPMM are screened using Turnitin for plagiarism similarity. Editors may also choose to run the similarity report at any other point during the review process or post-publication.

Reviewers are responsible to maintain their integrity and required to (1) ensure an absence of any conflict of interest with any manuscript to be reviewed, such case should be disclosed and informed to the Chief Editor; (2) refuse review of any submission in the area of his/her has inadequate knowledge; (3) provide objective, fair, accurate, unbiased, courteous, justifiable and speedy report; (4) practice the confidentiality of the content of the manuscript reviewed; (5) not copy or use the data, arguments or interpretations in the manuscript without the author’s approval; (6) report any suspected misconduct, such case should be confidently reported to the Chief Editor; (7) to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that assigned manuscript.

Any peer review misconduct or dispute will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Editorial board
Editors are carefully selected by the Chief Editor to steward JPMM to ensure the continuance and integrity of the journal’s publication mechanisms and processes. They are required to balance the interest of the constituents that include the readers, authors, owners, staff, editorial board members, advertisers and media. Their active contribution is imperative towards the development of JPMM.

Editors are responsible contribute to the journal by (1) being an active ambassador of JPMM; (2) upholding the identity of JPMM through the selection of suitable manuscripts for the journal; (3) supporting the journal by up taking assigned task; (4) evaluating each manuscript fairly; (5) upholding their integrity by ensuring the confidentiality of the manuscripts and review process; (6) ensuring the continuity of the journal’s publications; (7) identifying suitable reviewer(s) for any manuscript deemed relevant with JPMM remit; (8) publishing any correction and retraction with an apology note; (9) managing any dispute or misconduct report by adhering to COPE guideline.

Any editorial misconduct or dispute will be managed by the higher level of editorial board adhering to the COPE guideline

Plagiarism policy
Any editorial misconduct or dispute will be managed by the higher level of editorial board adhering to the COPE guideline Plagiarism US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) defines plagiarism as both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes. It includes miscredit of others idea or work (unreferenced), research grant applications to submission under a new authorship of a complete paper, published work in different language, of any version (print, or electronic). Authors are responsible for the authenticity of their work, and any shortcoming due to plagiarism dispute or report. Each manuscript should go through plagiarism check that may be obtained from Turnitin, Crossref Similarity Check, to name a few. The manuscript submitted should has not been published elsewhere (journal, newspaper, conference proceeding, or any other type of publication). Any potential or report on plagiarism will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice
JPMM encourages the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible principles of transparency and measures to avoid publication malpractice. We subscribe to the guideline set up by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) with regard to the expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors (as outlined above).

Any issue or potential report regarding (not limited to) duplication or redundancy of publication, biasness language, ethnicity terms, human studies and subject consent, or conflict of interest should be directed to the Chief Editor and will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline. To add, bias-free language guide may be referred to Publication Manual of the American Psychology Association, Seventh Edition (2020). Guideline on the terms for ethnicity and race may be referred to the British Sociological Association (BSA).

Authors are required to confirm that informed consent has been obtained for any human subject that involve potentially vulnerable groups as listed by the Icelandic Human Rights Center . Further details and recommendation concerning research with this group may be referred to the UK Economic and Social Research Council.

Authors are required to include a statement in the manuscript; confirming the consent has been obtained from any of this potentially vulnerable group for the data gathered from them to be published. Consent for research participation is not consent for data to be published. This is necessary as the information shared may lead to an identification of the individual within this group.

Research and publication misconduct

COPE defines misconduct as ‘questionable practices’. Research misconduct may distort or affect the reliability of the research record in terms of findings, conclusions or attribution’. Research misconduct includes plagiarism, citation manipulation, ethics violations, result misappropriation, image manipulation, research errors, and content fabrication/ falsification.

Plagiarism is defined as the usage of another author’s work without authorisation or giving credit or acknowledging the original author (through citation and references). There are three categories: literal, substantial, and paraphrase copying. Literal copying includes a reproduction of partial or whole work of other author (s) in the form of word by word, without authorisation or acknowledging the author(s). It is the easiest form of plagiarism to be detected. Substantial copying is a significant reproduction of another author (s)’ work without authorisation or recognising the original source in terms of the quality and quantity context of the content. Substantial copying is identified as a replication of a pith of a work (including a tiny content) without authorisation or acknowledging the original source and benefits the author(s). While paraphrasing or rewording is challenging to identify, it’s an infringement. Therefore, the plagiarism identification of substantial copying is applied to this work.

Citation manipulation is the practice of inflating the number of citations, which is a commodity in the scholarly community.  This misbehaviour is against the publication ethics. There are three types of citation manipulation: - self-citation, citation stacking, and citation stuffing (en masse). Self-citation is an inclusion of any citation of the author or co-author(s)’s work in their submitted manuscript. The gravity of citation misconduct increases as the number of self-citations increases. Citation stacking occurs when reviewers suggest excessive citations of a particular group of authors or journals, which may be a part of a citation ring that wants to inflate their citations. Citation stuffing occurs when an author(s) includes abundant new citations at the late stage of peer review despite being required to. This may signify a bigger citation ring/ paper mill.

Research errors, content fabrication or falsification may be considered under a few circumstances. Research errors in scholarly work within the context of JPMM encompass unintentional inaccuracies or mistakes in the research process, such as errors in data collection, analysis, or interpretation, which can undermine the reliability and validity of research outcomes. These errors may arise from various sources, including flaws in methodology, issues with instrumentation, or biases in sampling.

Content fabrication or falsification in scholarly work refers to the unethical practice of inventing or manipulating data or results, which undermines the credibility and reliability of research findings. This can include making up experimental results, altering data, or misrepresenting findings. One is when the authors' team does not have the capacity or access to exercise the research or analysis that results in the data provided in the manuscript or article. Second, the data provided is too perfect. Falsification is publishing data or information which is not genuinely generated from the research or experiment, which is equivalent to data manipulation with the purpose of producing the desired outcome and eliminating the undesired outcome of the research. Meanwhile, fabrication is simply devising the results of the research.

Image manipulation is defined as manipulating images for other reasons than improving its clarity or lucidity (through the alterations of brightness, contrast and colour balance), in which considered a scientific ethical abuse. While an ethical image duplication requires acknowledgment of source, and justification for using the image, as well as required license and consents if applicable. 

Research ethics violations violations involve breaches of ethical principles or guidelines governing the conduct of research or inadequate protection of participants' confidentiality and rights. This includes an absence of prior informed consent from the subjects (e.g., human) or failure to follow animal protection protocols.

Result misappropriation is a false claim of research’ authorship or ownership, in another word; a dispute of authorship or data ownership.

Publication misconduct includes redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission, not disclosing competing interests, misleading reporting, and bias or using confidential material by reviewers or editors. These actions undermine the integrity of academic research and the trustworthiness of scientific literature.

Inappropriate authorship encompassing practices such as ghostwriting, guest authorship, and honorary authorship, undermines the integrity of scholarly work by attributing credit to individuals who did not substantially contribute. When allegations of inappropriate authorship arise, journal editors conduct thorough investigations, examining contributor roles and communication records to ascertain the veracity of claims. If misconduct is confirmed, editorial actions may include retraction of the publication, imposition of sanctions on involved parties, and notification of relevant institutions or professional bodies, thereby upholding ethical standards and maintaining trust within the academic community.

Duplication or redundant of publication is defined by White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications as authors must avoid duplicate publication, which is reproducing verbatim content from their other publications. COPE includes duplicate or redundant at any occurrence of two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions. These types of prior publications are excluded from concerns of duplication of redundant publication: 1) abstract or posters presented in conference proceedings; 2) research results presented at meetings (e.g to inform constituents such as participants, investigators, funders); 3) results that have not been interpreted, discussed, concluded, concluded in the form of tables and text to explain the data or information (in databases or clinical trials registries); 4) theses and dissertations in university archives. A publication of an abstract for any proceedings and papers published in other language require a full and prominent disclosure of details of the related papers, proceedings or publications (including of different language) and similar paper in press during the submission. Any potential or report of duplication or redundant report will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Un-disclosing of competing interests is not disclosing competing interests in scholarly research refers to the failure to openly declare financial, professional, or personal affiliations that could potentially bias the research process or interpretation of results. These undisclosed interests may include financial relationships with commercial entities, memberships in advocacy groups, or positions held in competing organizations.

Bias in scholarly review or editorial processes refers to the unfair influence that personal opinions, prejudices, or undisclosed interests may have on the evaluation of research manuscripts or the decision-making process. This bias can manifest in various forms, including favoritism towards certain authors or institutions, discrimination based on factors such as gender or ethnicity, or conflicts of interest arising from financial or professional affiliations.

Handling of Appeals, Complaints, and Allegations

Any appeal, complaint or allegation about any submission or published article is to be forwarded to the journal’s editorial board through email ( The appeal pertaining to any manuscript submitted will be addressed by the editorial board and reviewers involved. Meanwhile, complaints and allegations will be addressed according to COPE guidelines.

1. Plagiarism, duplicate and redundant publication

In the case of plagiarism, redundant or duplicate submission/ publication, the journal will verify the level of plagiarism/ overlap before contacting the corresponding author. Following these first steps, these complaints and allegations will be further addressed according to COPE guidelines and recommendations by Elsevier. Further investigation may involve the affiliated institutions or other responsible institutions/ authorities (i.e., redundant publication, fabricated data, ethics violations, image manipulation). In any case, where the complaints or allegations resulted in unsatisfactory or guilty results, the outcome for submitted manuscripts and published articles varies, subject to the type of misconduct. (i) For submitted manuscripts, the manuscript will be rejected; (ii) for published articles, the article may be considered for correction in the publication or retraction.

2. Citation manipulation

In the event of suspiciously serious self-citation, reviewer(s) or editor(s) may require the author(s) to review their reference list to ensure the inclusion of the most recent works of literature and justify any self-citation in their manuscript. JPMM sets ‘appropriate self-citations’ at a max of 5% of the references.

At any event where the author(s) suspects a citation stacking by any reviewers or editors, they are recommended to email the chief editor of JPMM. Based on COPE ethics guidelines, reviewers or editors must refrain from recommending author(s) to cite their (or associates') work to inflate their citation number; any recommendation should be based on substantial scholastic justifications. In such circumstances, the chief editor will request the reviewer or editor to enlist manuscripts reviewed and justify the request for additional citations. This peer review manipulation will be investigated through the academic and scholastic background of the reviewer or editor. Unacceptable justifications for the reviewer's citation suggestion may result in the suggestion's annulment. The reviewer will be advised to refrain from recommending citations without a valid justification.  In the worst scenario, where past and current reviewing behaviour is unethical, the reviewer or editor may be dropped from the peer review process and banned from reviewing future manuscripts.

For any allegations or complaints pertaining to suspected stuffing citations, authors will be requested to justify the inclusion of additional citations without being required to do so at the final stage of peer review. Any citation that is not satisfactorily justified, are to be removed from the list.

3. Research errors, content fabrication or falsification

Upon receiving complaints or allegations of research errors, the JPMM's editors conduct a comprehensive evaluation, examining the study's design, methodology, and data analysis procedures. JPMM may seek input from peer reviewers or subject matter experts to assess the extent and implications of the errors. Depending on the severity and impact of the errors, editorial measures may include issuing corrections or errata, publishing expressions of concern, or, in extreme cases, retracting the publication to uphold the integrity of academic literature and ensure the accuracy of scholarly contributions in the field of media studies.

When allegations of content fabrication or falsification arise, JPMM typically initiate thorough investigations, scrutinizing the validity of the data and methodologies used. JPMM may request access to raw data, conduct peer reviews, and consult with experts to assess the integrity of the research. If misconduct is confirmed, editorial actions may include retraction of the publication, imposition of sanctions on the responsible parties, and disclosure to relevant institutions or professional bodies to uphold the integrity of academic publishing and ensure the trustworthiness of scholarly literature.

JPMM’s action towards any of these allegations is similar to research misappropriation. For any suspicion by reviewers about data fabrication in a submitted manuscript, the reviewers will be contacted for details and evidence, and a second opinion will be obtained from another reviewer before author(s) is(are) made aware of the complaint. If the allegation was made towards a published article, a second reviewer will be appointed. In the meantime, author(s) will be informed of the concern and requested to provide an explanation regarding any concerned part of the manuscript. At the event where satisfactory explanation provided, the peer-review process shall proceed for a manuscript, and an offer for correction shall be made for a published article. Otherwise, JPMM shall contact the author(s) institution to request for an investigation. Similar action is taken when no response provided by the author(s). Should there be no response from the author(s) institution, an enquiry will be requested from a regulatory body. At this final phase, should the author(s) are cleared from the allegation, the peer-review process of a manuscript will proceed, and JPMM shall apologise to the author(s) of the published article. Otherwise, if they are found guilty or provided unsatisfactory response, the manuscript will be rejected. For a published article, the article will be retracted. However, if the response from the author(s)’ institution or regulatory body was unsatisfactory, JPMM will publish an expression of concern towards the content of the published article in the journal.

4. Image manipulation or duplication

Any part of manipulated or duplicated image should not be amplified, blurred or hidden, moved, extracted, and introduced. JPMM will first consider an opinion from a second reviewer and contact the corresponding author for further explanation to this allegation. If the explanation was not satisfactory, the author(s) will be required to inform their superior or person in charge of the study. If necessary, JPMM will liaise with the author(s)’ institution. Should the image be clearly manipulated, JPMM has the right to retract the article. Although, if the manipulation was minimum and did not highly influence the validity of the result and conclusion of the study, the author(s) will be offered a correction to the manipulated image. Both author(s) and their institution will be briefed of the decision.  At the event where the explanation provided by the author(s) was satisfactorily, the author(s) will be offered opportunity for correction for the manipulated image if necessary. At the event where the author(s) was found innocence from the allegations of image alterations, JPMM will apologise to the author(s) and offer a rectification of the image manipulated or duplicated (if there was any error identified with the image). A failure for the author(s) to provide explanations or appropriate response to this allegation will result in JPMM engaging with the author(s)’s institution to resolve the allegations.   

5. Research ethics violations

When allegations of research ethics violations arise, journal editors typically respond with a rigorous investigation process. This may involve examining the research methodology, data collection procedures, and adherence to ethical standards outlined by institutional review boards or professional organizations. Editors may solicit input from relevant experts or ethics committees to assess the validity of the allegations and determine appropriate actions. Depending on the severity of the violations, editorial measures may include retracting the publication, issuing corrections, alerting relevant authorities, or banning offending authors from future submissions. By addressing research ethics violations promptly and decisively, journal editors uphold the integrity of scholarly research and maintain public trust in academic publishing.

6. Result misappropriation

The action to be taken by JPMM is almost similar to authorships complaints. The author(s) and the institution where the research was conducted or other relevant institution will be informed, thus advised to resolve the dispute. The claimant will be informed of the due process, which requires JPMM to contact the corresponding author(s) and institution or organisation involved with the research for further inquiry. Should the corresponding author agreed to the claim, the article will undergo a retraction process. Another appropriate option is to acknowledge and properly credit the original author(s), accordingly. At the event where the corresponding author did not agree to the claim, an explanation will be required or inquiry will be made to the institution or organisation where the research was undertaken. Should the institution confirmed the claim by the claimant, JPMM will either retract the article or offer a proper credit acknowledgement to the article.   

7. Publication misconduct

When allegations of publication misconduct arise, journal editors typically follow a structured process to address them, which may involve gathering evidence, notifying relevant parties, and initiating an investigation. JPMM works closely with their editorial boards and may seek guidance from institutional review bodies or professional organizations. Depending on the severity of the misconduct, consequences may include retraction of the publication, banning authors from submitting to the journal, and informing relevant institutions or funding agencies. JPMM is committed to upholding the principles of academic integrity and ensuring the reliability of published research within their respective fields.

8. Inappropriate authorship

When allegations of inappropriate authorship arise, JPMM conducts thorough investigations, examining contributor roles and communication records to ascertain the veracity of claims. If misconduct is confirmed, editorial actions may include retraction of the publication, imposition of sanctions on involved parties, and notification of relevant institutions or professional bodies, thereby upholding ethical standards and maintaining trust within the academic community.

9. Un-disclosing competing interests

When allegations of undisclosed competing interests arise, journal editors typically initiate a thorough investigation process. This involves scrutinizing the authors' declarations, examining potential conflicts of interest, and assessing the impact on the validity and credibility of the research findings. JPMM may seek input from independent reviewers or ethics committees to determine the severity of the non-disclosure and the appropriate course of action. Depending on the outcome, editorial measures may include issuing corrections, retracting the publication, or imposing sanctions on the authors. By addressing allegations of non-disclosure, JPMM upholds the transparency and integrity of the scholarly publishing process.

10. Bias or using confidential material by reviewers or editors

Upon the emergence of allegations regarding bias or the unauthorized utilization of confidential material by reviewers or editors, the journal's editorial board takes these claims seriously and initiates thorough investigations. This involves scrutinizing communication records, evaluating the integrity of the review process, and, if necessary, implementing corrective measures such as independent reevaluation or retraction of published work. JPMM adheres to established protocols and ethical guidelines to address such issues, thereby upholding the integrity and credibility of the scholarly publishing process.

Bias-free language
Any research that include or refers to human subject needs to detail out the population using descriptors. The language and descriptors used are required to be bias-free. Further details on the recommendations of bias-free language for gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status and socioeconomic status may be referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychology Association, Seventh Edition (2020). Any report concerning bias-free language should be directed to the Chief Editor, and will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Ethnicity and race
Authors are advised to be mindful in detailing demographic of any study population. when referring to ethnicity and race, it is recommended to use ethnicity terms compared to race. Authors may refer to the British Sociological Association (BSA) for terms guideline in relation to ethnicity and race. Any report concerning ethnicity terms should be directed to the Chief Editor, and will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Human studies and subjects
Authors are required to confirm that informed consent has been obtained for any human subject that involve potentially vulnerable groups as listed by the Icelandic Human Rights Center. They are: 1) women and girls; 2) children; 3) refugees; 4) internally displaced persons; 5) stateless persons; 6) national minorities; 7) indigenous peoples; 8) migrant workers; 9) disabled persons; 10) older adults; 11) HIV positive persons and AIDS victims; 12) ROMA/ Gypsies/ Sinti; and 13) lesbian, gay and transgender people. Further details and recommendation concerning research with this group may be referred to the UK Economic and Social Research Council. Authors are required to include a statement in the manuscript; confirming the consent has been obtained from any of this potentially vulnerable group for the data gathered from them to be published. Consent for research participation is not a consent for data to be published. This is necessary as the information shared may lead to an identification of the individual within this group. Any report concerning human studies and subject consent should be directed to the Chief Editor, and will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Conflict of interest (COI)
COPE defines conflict of interest as comprise those which may not be fully apparent, and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. A reader may possibly feel misled or deceived if the list of the authors, reviewers and editors are revealed. Conflict of interest include personal, commercial, political, academic or financial (includes stock or share ownership, employment, research fund, consultancies, etc). Authors are required to declare 1) any presence or absence of COI; and 2) relevant funding in the manuscript during the submission. Reviewers are required to declare any COI before reviewing any manuscript. Any editor that has any COI with any submission will be excluded from the review and selection process. Any potential or suspected undisclosed COI will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Licensing, Copyright and intellectual property
JPMM adopts CC-BY of Creative Common License. As such, JPMM would be grateful if the republication is accompanied by an acknowledgement that the work was originally published in JPMM.

Data sharing and reproducibility

JPMM promotes transparency, accountability, and the advancement of knowledge. Additionally, JPMM also encourages  data sharing and reproducibility

1. Data availability

authors are encouraged to include a data availability statement in their manuscripts. This statement describes where the data supporting the findings of the study can be accessed, including any restrictions or conditions for access. It promotes transparency by enabling other researchers to locate and evaluate the data underlying the published work.

2. Data sharing

Authors are encouraged to share their raw data, code, and other relevant materials in any preferred repositories (such as online drive)upon publication. This ensures that the findings reported in the paper can be independently verified and replicated by other researchers. Furthermore, this encourage transparency, collaborations and data reuse in the future.

3. Reproducibility

Authors are required to provide detailed descriptions of research procedures and materials to facilitate replication by other researchers.


Post-publication discussion and correction:

  1. Repository policy
    JPMM does not have any repository policy in regard to author(s) work. Author(s) of work is/are allowed to deposit the work in their institution or any other repository of their choice. Each work should state the version (Before peer review/ Accepted version/ Published version) and full credit or referencing note.

  2. Withdrawal or retraction
    It is JPMM policy to strongly discourage withdrawal of any accepted scientific article. An accepted scientific article may be retracted for the reasons: 1) comprises error; 2) double submission; 3) infringes a professional ethical code. The accepted article will be deleted with a withdrawal and apology statement. JPMM is committed to maintain its scholarly integrity and has the right to retract articles under certain circumstances, such as: 1) major scientific error with strong evidence of problematic errors (e.g result of misconduct or honest error that include erroneous conclusion or experiment error); 2) the findings have been published in other publication without any appropriate referencing, approval or justification; 3) plagiarism issues (appropriately managed following COPE guideline); 4) report of unethical research; 5) infringement of the research subject's privacy; 6) unauthorized usage of data or material; 7) failure to disclose any conflict of interest, which may affect the findings or discussions of the research, subject to reviewer' and editor's discretion. At any occurrence of mistake in the accepted scientific article, authors are responsible to retract or amend any minor mistake. Following the correction, the scientific article will be republished with an apology statement from the authors. Authors are required to contact the chief editor for any request of amendment, or retraction. Any request for amendment or retraction; and report of any major issue leading to retraction will be managed adhering to the COPE guideline.

Media relations
Some scientific research findings may be very interesting that they attract mass media. Simultaneous publication in both mass media and JPMM is authorized. For such reason, authors are encouraged to assist journalist upon producing accurate information, without additional data. At such event, authors are encouraged to advise the journalist to cite JPMM and direct the readers to obtain further information from the author’s scientific article in JPMM.

Advertising Policy
As a journal published by an academic institution, we do not practice publication of any advertisement from any company or institution. Although, we only publish advertisements that promote the content of the journal (JPMM) in the journal.

Data analysis content
Researchers should appropriately analyse their data. However, an inappropriate analysis may not lead to a misconduct. Misconduct includes fabrication and data falsification. Authors are advised to include the following in their manuscript: 1) Detailed explanation of sources and methods to acquire data, including any electronic pre-processing and detailed explanations for any exclusions 2) Detailed explanation of the methods of analysis with appropriate referencing 3) The discussion section should include any bias issue, with explanation of the solution or how it was dealt. The detailed methodology and analysis are imperative for other researchers to adopt and adapt. Note: Any other issue that is not stated in this ethics statement yet related to the publication will be managed adhering to COPE guideline.