A publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
(composed using the Publishing ethics resource kit and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations)

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication (Based on Elsevier Policies)

InterMath Education Journal (IMEJ) is intended for lecturers, researchers, mathematics school teachers, teacher educators, and university students (S1, S2, and S3) who wish to publish research reports or literature review articles (only for invited contributors) on mathematics education and instruction.

InterMath Education publication (IMEJ) is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes papers to help create a cohesive and acknowledged network of mathematics education information. It is critical to establish ethical standards for all parties engaged in the publication process, including the author, journal editor, peer reviewer, publisher, and society.

Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang, Indonesia, as the publisher of InterMath Education Journal, accepts responsibility for all phases of the publication process and recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. We are dedicated to ensuring that advertising, reprint, and other commercial income have no impact or influence on editorial choices. Furthermore, UBP Karawang and the Editorial Board will assist in interactions with other journals and/or publishers as needed.

Guidelines for Authors are based on Elsevier policies.
Reporting standards
Authors of original research papers should include an accurate overview of the work completed as well as an objective evaluation of its importance. The underlying data should be appropriately reported in the study. A paper should provide enough information and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or willfully incorrect remarks are unethical and unprofessional. Review and professional publishing articles should be truthful and objective, and editorial opinion pieces should be explicitly labeled as such.

Data access and retention.
Authors may be required to contribute raw data associated with an article for editorial review, and they should be willing to allow public access to such data, if possible, and to maintain such data for a reasonable period of time following publication.

Ensuring originality and avoiding copying
The writers should guarantee that their works are wholly unique, and that if they have used the work and/or words of others, they have properly cited or referenced them. Plagiarism may take several forms, including passing off another's paper as the author's own, copying or paraphrasing significant portions of another's paper (without acknowledgment), and claiming findings from research undertaken by another. Plagiarism, in all of its manifestations, is unethical publication activity that is condemned.

Multiple, duplicate, or contemporaneous publications.
In general, an author should avoid publishing articles presenting the same study in several journals or primary publications. It is unethical and improper to submit the same paper to many journals at the same time. In general, an author should not resubmit a previously published manuscript to another publication. Some types of papers (for example, clinical recommendations and translations) can be published in multiple journals if specific requirements are satisfied. The authors and editors of the relevant journals must agree on the secondary publication, which must include the same facts and interpretation as the initial paper. The main source must be referenced in the secondary publication.

Acknowledge sources.
Proper recognition of the labor of others must always be provided. Authors should reference publications that influenced the character of the reported study. Information collected privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with other parties, may not be utilized or reported without the source's explicit, written consent. Information received during confidential services, such as reviewing papers or grant applications, may not be utilized without the author's clear written consent.

Authorship of the paper.
Authorship should be limited to those who contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. Everyone who has made important contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who contributed to certain substantive areas of the study endeavor should be thanked or identified as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all suitable co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its publication.

Hazards and human/animal topics.
If the study contains substances, techniques, or equipment that have any special dangers associated with their usage, the author must fully disclose them in the paper. If the work involves the use of animals or humans, the author should provide a statement in the paper that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and institutional norms, and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) authorized them. The authors should add a statement in the publication stating that informed permission was acquired for human subject experiments. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.

Disclosure and conflict of interest.
All authors should state any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of their paper. All sources of funding for the project should be mentioned. Employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other support are all examples of possible conflicts of interest that must be reported. Potential conflicts of interest should be declared as early as feasible.

Published works have fundamental inaccuracies.
When an author uncovers a serious error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, the author must quickly tell the journal editor or publisher and collaborate with the editor to retract or fix the manuscript. If the editor or publisher discovers from a third party that a published work includes a serious error, it is the author's responsibility to quickly withdraw or revise the paper, or to give evidence to the editor that the original document was right.

Duties of the Editorial Board:
(These recommendations are based on Elsevier regulations and the COPE's Best Practice recommendations for Journal Editors)

Decisions about publication.
The editor of a peer-reviewed publication, such as the International publication of Mathematics Education, is in charge of determining which papers should be published. Such judgments must always be driven by the validity of the work in question, as well as its value to scholars and readers. The editor may be directed by the journal's editorial board principles while also being bound by any legal requirements in effect at the time addressing libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers before reaching this judgment.

Fair play
An editor should examine articles based on their intellectual value, regardless of the writers' color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic background, citizenship, or political ideology.

Confidentiality.
The editor and any editorial staff are not permitted to divulge any information about a submitted article to anybody other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, if applicable.

Disclosure and conflict of interest.
Unpublished materials described in a submitted paper may not be utilized in the editor's own study without the author's express written agreement. Privileged knowledge or ideas received through peer review must remain secret and not exploited for personal gain. Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions associated with the papers. Editors should compel all writers to identify any relevant competing interests and provide revisions if they are discovered after publication. If necessary, further appropriate measures should be taken, such as publishing a retraction or expressing concern.

Participation and cooperation in inquiries
When ethical objections are made about a submitted manuscript or a published article, an editor should take reasonable remedial action in collaboration with the publisher (or society). Such measures will typically include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but they may also include additional communications to relevant institutions and research bodies, and, if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate. Every reported case of unethical publishing activity must be investigated, even if it is found years after publication.

Guidelines for reviewers are based on Elsevier standards and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Contribute to editorial choices.
Peer review helps the editor make editorial judgments, and editorial discussions with the author can help the author improve the manuscript. Peer review is a crucial component of formal academic communication and the foundation of the scientific process.

Promptness.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to examine the research provided in a paper or understands that quick review is impossible should contact the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality.
Manuscripts received for consideration must be considered as confidential. They may not be shown or discussed with others unless allowed by the editor.

Objectivity standards.
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate. Referees should convey their opinions clearly and with supporting reasoning.

Acknowledge sources.
Reviewers should find relevant published material that the authors have not cited. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously published should be supported by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also bring to the editor's notice any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article about which they are personally aware.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest.
Unpublished materials described in a submitted paper may not be used in the reviewer's own study without the author's express written approval. Privileged knowledge or ideas received through peer review must remain secret and not exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should not accept submissions that have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other ties or affiliations with any of the authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the articles.