PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The submitted manuscript will be reviewed first by the Editor in Chief. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the scope in International Conference on Innovation in Food Science, Culinary Arts, and Fashion Technology (INNOFATEC). If it meets the requirements, the similarity verification process will be conducted using the Turnitin software. When manuscript have similarity more than 20%, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision and resubmitted it. When the manuscript meets the requirements, it will be reviewed by a minimum of 2 reviewers through a double-blind process. The results of the review process are presented as a basis for the editor in making decisions. If the reviewer suggests revisions, it will be sent to the author to make revisions, and the review process will continue until round 2. Acceptance of the submitted articles considers the reviewer’s suggestions and recommendations. After the article has been revised correctly, the manuscript will proceed to the production process. Articles will be published after the closing meeting of the Editorial Board.

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

INNOFATEC is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. Authors who submit papers to INNOFATEC attest that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own; that it has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works; and that they have disclosed actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour 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.

JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE ETHICS

1. Determining the name of the journal, 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 review, 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 on copyrights.
6. Conducting the policy reviews on the journals 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 on a regular basis.
9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainability journal publishing.
10. Establishing cooperation and marketing networks.
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 in delivering 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 responsibility of the authors.
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 opinion or views of others who are different than their personal opinion.
9. Prohibiting in defending our own opinion, the author or third parties, which may result in a false decision.
10. Encouraging the author in order to make improvements to 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 as a matter of determining the feasibility of the paper for publication.
2. Reviewing the papers in a timely manner (on time) in accordance with the style guide based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the legality of the author, conclusions, etc.).
3. Reviewing the papers that have been corrected in accordance with the standards.
4. Encouraging the author to make improvements in the papers by providing feedback, 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 review any papers that involve the reviewers in their work, directly or indirectly.
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 the development of science, technology, and innovation; also comprehending the impact on the development of science writing.
10. Prohibiting in defending own opinion, the author, or third parties, which may result in decision reference becoming non-objective.
11. Upholding the value of objectivity and 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 being able 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 be giving recommendations to the researcher if there is any other expert on the subjects.
15. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinion or views of others who are different than 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 results of the review must be presented in an honest, objective and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are:
    • > Accepted without revision
    • > Accepted with minor revision (after repaired by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review)
    • > Accepted with major revision (after repaired by the author, return to the peer review for re-review)
    • > Rejected and recommended for other publication
    • > Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because scientifically, the paper is flawed for the community.
18. Giving rejection for the last recommendation as the last choice related to the feasibility of the papers or with indication of severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
19. 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. Author is collectively responsible for the work and the content of the article, which cover methods, analysis, calculation, and its details.
2. Author immediately responds to the comments made by the peer review professionally and timely.
3. Author should inform the editor if they retract their paper.
4. The author describes the limitations of the study.
5. Author respects the publishers if they demand to not to publish the findings in the form of interviews or through any other media before the publication.
6. The author informs the editor of (a) paper that is part of a phased research, multidisciplinary, and different perspectives.
7. The author makes a statement 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.
9. The use of materials from other publications which are copyrighted, should be given written permission and gratitude.
10. The author refers to the work of others as appropriate in citations and quotations used in the paper.
11. When delivering new discoveries or improving inventions, the authors should mention the job previous researcher/writer/founder.
12. The author is not allowed to give a bibliography of the publications if they do not read the publication.
13. If requested, the authors prepared the proof that the research has already met the requirements of the research ethics, including the field notes.
14. Author adequately responds if there are any comments or feedback after the paper is published.

PLAGIARISM POLICY

All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo plagiarism detection through Turnitin software. The Similarity limit of the manuscript is max. 20% with max. 3% for each source. Plagiarism limit Manuscripts that are found to be plagiarized during the initial review stages are immediately rejected and not considered for publication. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will initiate a preliminary investigation, possibly with the assistance of a designated committee. If the manuscript is determined to exceed acceptable plagiarism limits, the journal will inform the author’s affiliated institution and any relevant funding agencies. In cases of confirmed misconduct, the journal will publish a statement linking to the original paper, noting the plagiarism and referencing the plagiarized material. The plagiarized paper will also be clearly marked on each page of its PDF. Depending on the severity of the plagiarism, the paper may be formally retracted.