Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journals Mining Engineering: Bina Tambang is committed to integrity, transparency, fairness, and accountability in scholarly publishing. This statement defines the responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher throughout submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication assessment.

The journal’s ethical policies are informed by the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to COPE guidance does not imply COPE membership or endorsement.

All parties involved in the publication process are expected to comply with this statement and the journal’s related policies on peer review, authorship, conflicts of interest, data availability, artificial intelligence, and corrections and retractions.

1. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher supports the editorial team in maintaining a reliable scholarly record and implementing the journal’s publication policies.

The publisher shall:

• Respect the independence of editorial decisions.

• Ensure that commercial interests, publication fees, sponsorship, or institutional relationships do not determine manuscript acceptance.

• Support the investigation of suspected misconduct and the publication of corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted.

• Support appropriate arrangements for access, preservation, and the security of editorial records.

• Ensure that information about ownership, management, fees, copyright, and licensing is accurately communicated.

• Provide an appropriate route for complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief or the journal’s management.

2. Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. Editorial Decisions and Independence

Editors assess submissions according to their relevance to the journal’s scope, scientific contribution, methodological soundness, clarity, and compliance with ethical requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined before external peer review. Manuscripts proceeding to external review are handled in accordance with the journal’s Peer Review Policy.

The responsible editor makes publication decisions after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors’ responses, and any relevant ethical concerns. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not independently determine, the final decision.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by publication fees, sponsorship, personal relationships, or pressure from authors, institutions, or the publisher.

2.2. Fair and Respectful Assessment

Editors evaluate manuscripts on their scientific and scholarly merits without discrimination based on an author’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, political beliefs, or institutional prestige.

Editors must maintain professional communication and distinguish criticism of a manuscript from criticism of its authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated communications must be treated as confidential.

Information may be shared only with individuals who require access for legitimate editorial, review, production, or integrity-related purposes. Access must be proportionate to the task and consistent with the journal’s confidentiality and privacy commitments.

Editors must not use unpublished information, data, or ideas obtained through editorial work for personal or professional advantage without the appropriate permission.

2.4. Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Editors must disclose relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartial assessment.

An editor must not handle a manuscript when a relevant conflict exists, including personal, financial, supervisory, institutional, collaborative, or competitive relationships.

Submissions authored by an editor or editorial board member must be assigned to an independent editor. The author-editor must not participate in reviewer selection, confidential deliberations, or the publication decision.

Any relevant conflict involving the Editor-in-Chief must be handled through an independent arrangement established by the publisher.

2.5. Reviewer Selection and Review Integrity

Editors must select reviewers with appropriate expertise and assess potential conflicts of interest. Reviewer identities and qualifications should be verified where necessary.

Editors must not knowingly use fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated reviewer accounts, or review reports produced through deceptive arrangements.

Suggested reviewers may be considered, but authors must not control reviewer selection or communicate privately with reviewers about an ongoing assessment.

2.6. Citation Integrity

Editors must not require authors to cite the journal, its editors, or particular publications merely to increase citation counts.

Requests for additional citations must have a clear scholarly justification. Manuscripts must not be disadvantaged because authors decline an irrelevant citation request and provide a reasoned explanation.

2.7. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues are subject to the same scientific and ethical standards as regular issues.

Guest editors must disclose conflicts of interest and follow the journal’s editorial procedures. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight of the integrity of the process. Submissions authored by guest editors must be handled independently.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Assessment

Reviewers assist editors in evaluating manuscripts and help authors improve the clarity, completeness, and scientific quality of their work.

Reports should address the research question, methods, evidence, interpretation, relevant literature, limitations, and contribution.

3.2. Expertise and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have sufficient expertise and can complete the assessment within the agreed period.

If a reviewer cannot complete a review, identifies a limitation in their expertise, or needs an extension, they must promptly notify the editor.

3.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, supplementary materials, data, and review communications must remain confidential.

Reviewers must not share a manuscript with another person, involve a colleague in the review, or disclose its contents without prior editorial permission. Any authorised contributor to a review must be identified to the editor and comply with the same confidentiality requirements.

Unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage or incorporated into the reviewer’s work without appropriate permission.

3.4. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be evidence-based, constructive, and respectful.

Reviewers should explain their assessments with clear reasoning and distinguish essential scientific revisions from optional suggestions. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

3.5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could affect impartiality and decline an assignment when appropriate.

If a conflict becomes apparent during review, the reviewer must stop the assessment and consult the editor.

3.6. Suspected Problems and Relevant Literature

Reviewers should confidentially alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap, manipulated images, unreliable data, undisclosed conflicts, or other ethical concerns.

Reviewers should identify relevant missing literature when it materially affects the assessment. They must not request unnecessary citations to their own work, their colleagues’ work, or a particular journal.

Reviewers must not independently contact authors or undertake an investigation on behalf of the journal without authorisation.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1. Accurate and Complete Reporting

Authors must present an accurate account of the research and an objective interpretation of its significance.

Methods, assumptions, data sources, analyses, and limitations must be described with sufficient detail to support critical assessment and, where practicable, reproduction.

Fabrication, falsification, deceptive image manipulation, and knowingly misleading reporting are prohibited. Authors must not present simulated, synthetic, or AI-generated data as observed field or experimental measurements.

Material exclusions, preprocessing decisions, and changes that affect interpretation must be explained.

4.2. Originality and Attribution

Authors must ensure that submitted work is original and that the words, ideas, methods, data, images, and other materials of others are appropriately acknowledged.

Direct quotations must be clearly identified. Paraphrasing does not remove the obligation to cite the original source.

Authors must obtain permission for copyrighted or restricted material where required and identify any material not covered by the article’s publication licence.

Similarity reports may support editorial assessment, but a numerical similarity score alone does not establish either plagiarism or the absence of plagiarism.

4.3. Concurrent Submission and Related Publications

A manuscript must not be submitted to another journal while it remains under consideration by this journal.

Authors must disclose related publications and manuscripts, including those based on substantially overlapping datasets, and explain how the submitted work differs.

Relevant theses, preprints, conference papers, and reports must also be disclosed. Their existence does not automatically constitute misconduct; the editor will assess overlap, attribution, rights, and the contribution of the submitted article.

Authors must not conceal redundant publication or divide a study into substantially overlapping papers without a clear, independently meaningful contribution.

4.4. Authorship and Accountability

Every listed author must:

1. Make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

2. Participate in drafting the manuscript or critically revising its intellectual content.

3. Approve the version submitted and the final version accepted for publication.

4. Accept accountability for their contribution and cooperate in resolving questions about the accuracy or integrity of the work.

Funding acquisition, administrative support, position or seniority, permission to access a site, or language editing alone does not justify authorship.

Gift, guest, purchased, and ghost authorship are prohibited. Contributors who do not meet the authorship requirements should be acknowledged, with their permission.

An author contribution statement using the CRediT taxonomy must describe each author’s role. A contribution statement does not replace the authorship requirements above.

4.5. Corresponding Author and Authorship Changes

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:

• All eligible authors are included and no ineligible authors are listed.

• Author names, affiliations, and contributions are accurate.

• All authors approve submission and material revisions.

• Editorial communications are shared with co-authors as appropriate.

• Required declarations and permissions are complete.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must include an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed.

The editor may suspend processing while an authorship dispute is unresolved. The journal does not determine ownership of research or adjudicate institutional authorship disputes; these may need referral to the relevant institutions.

4.6. Data, Code, and Supporting Records

Authors must include a Data and Code Availability Statement, where applicable, explaining how supporting materials can be accessed or why access is restricted.

Authors may be asked to provide underlying data, code, model parameters, measurement records, or other evidence needed to assess the manuscript or investigate concerns.

Legitimate restrictions, including personal privacy, industrial confidentiality, security, and contractual obligations, must be disclosed. Authors should explain whether controlled access, anonymised data, or other supporting materials can be provided.

Restrictions must not be used to conceal unreliable findings. If essential claims cannot be adequately assessed, the journal may decline the manuscript.

Authors must retain relevant research records for at least five years after publication, or longer when required by applicable law, institutional policy, funding conditions, or contractual obligations.

4.7. Research Ethics, Permissions, and Safety

Authors must obtain all applicable approvals and permissions before conducting and reporting research.

Research involving human participants, including worker interviews, surveys, health information, or identifiable personal data, must state the relevant ethical approval and consent arrangements, or explain the basis for an exemption.

Where animal research is involved, authors must report the applicable ethical approval and welfare safeguards.

For mining and industrial research, authors must disclose relevant permissions for site access and the use or publication of company-owned data. Company permission does not replace participant consent or ethical approval where these are required.

Unusual hazards associated with equipment, explosives, chemicals, fieldwork, or experimental procedures must be identified, together with relevant precautions. Sensitive operational information should be reported responsibly.

4.8. Funding and Competing Interests

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the research or its interpretation.

Relevant interests may include employment, consultancy, share ownership, patents, paid expert work, personal relationships, and relationships with mining companies, equipment suppliers, or other interested organisations.

All funding sources must be identified. Authors must describe the sponsor’s role, if any, in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit.

If no competing interests exist, authors must state this explicitly. Disclosure does not automatically prevent publication.

4.9. Responsible Citation

References must be relevant, accurate, and verified against the original sources wherever possible.

Authors must not include fabricated references, conceal relevant contradictory evidence, or participate in citation arrangements intended to manipulate metrics.

Retracted publications must not be used as reliable supporting evidence. If a retracted work is discussed for a legitimate reason, its retracted status must be made clear.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility for the work.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of all content, including content prepared with AI assistance.

The following requirements apply:

• Use of generative AI beyond routine spelling, grammar, and formatting assistance must be disclosed, identifying the tool and its purpose.

• AI used as part of the research method must be described in the Methods section with sufficient detail for assessment.

• AI-generated references, factual claims, code, and analyses must be independently checked.

• Artificial or generated data must be explicitly identified and must not be misrepresented as observations.

• Confidential, personal, or restricted information must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorisation and safeguards.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential submissions or review materials to public generative AI services or delegate scientific assessment and editorial decision-making to such tools.

AI-detection results alone are not sufficient evidence of misconduct.

6. Handling Suspected Misconduct

The journal will assess credible concerns raised before or after publication, including concerns submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, or other parties.

The procedure may include:

1. Recording the concern and reviewing the available evidence.

2. Appointing an independent editor where a conflict exists.

3. Requesting an explanation and relevant supporting records from the authors.

4. Seeking additional expert advice where necessary.

5. Referring matters to institutions, funders, or other appropriate bodies when warranted.

6. Determining an action proportionate to the findings.

Manuscript processing may be suspended during assessment. Authors will normally have an opportunity to respond, subject to legitimate confidentiality or legal constraints.

An allegation is not itself proof of misconduct. The journal will distinguish honest error, disagreement over interpretation, and misconduct as far as the evidence allows.

7. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Authors must promptly notify the editorial office when they discover an error that could materially affect a submitted or published article.

Depending on the evidence and its significance, the journal may publish:

• A correction when a specific error requires amendment but the article’s principal findings remain reliable.

• An expression of concern when a serious issue remains unresolved or an investigation is incomplete.

• A retraction when findings are unreliable or publication is seriously compromised by misconduct, redundant publication, rights violations, or other substantial ethical problems.

Post-publication notices will explain the reason for the action and be linked to the affected article. Corrections and retractions are intended to protect the scholarly record, not to serve as punishment.

Published material will not ordinarily be removed. Exceptional removal may be considered where required by law or justified by serious privacy, rights, or safety concerns.

8. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by contacting the editorial office and providing a clear explanation of the alleged factual or procedural error, together with supporting evidence.

Disagreement with a decision alone does not establish grounds for reversal. Appeals will be assessed by an editor who is independent of the matter as far as practicable.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or the publication process may also be submitted to the editorial office.

Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief must be referred to the publisher through the contact route identified on the journal’s Contact page. Retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith is unacceptable.

9. Author Cooperation and Continuing Responsibility

Authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher share responsibility for maintaining the reliability of the scholarly record.

Authors must respond to reasonable requests for clarification concerning their work, including after publication. When an error or ethical problem is established, all relevant parties are expected to cooperate in implementing an appropriate and transparent resolution.