Manucript Template
Gema Publica provides media to publish scientific articles as a result of research and development in public administration study.
Gema Publica limited to published the scope of public policy analysis, public organization management, public sector innovation, citizen participation, sustainability and environment.
We accept contributions of research articles and conceptual (non-research) articles from authors in English (preferable). We put more emphasis on research articles.
All articles to be published must follow the procedures as listed on the Gema Publica website. The article in Gema Publica to be published is the result of a peer review consists of two peer reviewers. The decision on whether or not a manuscript can be published in the authority of the Chief Editor. The final decision of the manuscript to be published in the end result of the Editorial Board meeting.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Gema Publica (p-ISSN: 2460-9714, e-ISSN: 2548-1363) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Diponegoro University. This statement clarifies ethical behavior 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. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Gema Publica journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Diponegoro University as publisher of Gema Publica journal takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Faculty of Social and Political Science Diponegoro University and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful andnecessary.
The editor of the Gema Publica journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. We recommend using Turnitin for minimalize plagiarism.
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The article was published in Gema Publica was not charged in the editing process, color, and the number of pages. If wanted print version of the journal, the authors of articles are only charged for printing and postage cost.
Crossmark
Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by GEMA PUBLICA : Jurnal Manajemen dan Kebijakan Publik to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur.
What is Crossmark?
CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. GEMA PUBLICA : Jurnal Manajemen dan Kebijakan Publik recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document and may also provide additional publication record information about the document.
Gema Publica Journal has been indexed by Crossref, Garuda, and Dimension.
Gema Publica does not receive revenue from commercial, advertising, or other external funding sources that may compromise its editorial integrity. The journal is supported solely by institutional publisher funding, intended to ensure broad, equitable, and affordable access to scholarly publications while maintaining rigorous academic and editorial standards.
The journal affirms that all financial support is managed in a manner that preserves full editorial independence. Funding arrangements do not influence manuscript selection, peer-review outcomes, editorial decisions, publication priorities, or the scholarly content published by the journal. Through this policy, Gema Publica upholds the principles of transparency, accountability, academic integrity, and independence in scholarly publishing.
To ensure the permanence of all publications, this journal also uses LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) archiving systems to create permanent archives for preservation and restoration. Gema Publica is indexed in Scielo, which indexes the journal's complete collection. The SciELO Program, through its digital preservation systems that directly involve the collections of the SciELO Network, presents itself as a partner institution that is a member of the CARINIANA Network of IBICT for preservation and of the LOCKSS Network.
In addition, we aim to have Gema Publica indexed on the SINTA (Science and Technology Index.
Attracting high-quality manuscript submissions is essential to the development, reputation, and sustainability of a scholarly journal. For this reason, Gema Publica is committed to strengthening the visibility, accessibility, and dissemination of the research it publishes.
The journal undertakes promotional and dissemination activities through ethical, targeted, and evidence-informed strategies to reach relevant academic communities, prospective authors, readers, reviewers, and institutional stakeholders. These efforts are intended to enhance the journal’s scholarly impact, expand its readership, and encourage the submission of rigorous, original research in public administration.
In promoting the journal and its published works, Gema Publica upholds the principles of transparency, integrity, professionalism, and respect for other parties. The journal avoids promotional practices that may be considered intrusive, misleading, coercive, or detrimental to individuals, institutions, or other publishers, including the dissemination of unsolicited spam messages. The journal also ensures that all information provided to prospective authors, readers, and the public accurately reflects its aims and scope, editorial policies, peer-review process, publication standards, and ethical commitments.
Guided by these principles, Gema Publica seeks to publish responsibly while maintaining trust, credibility, and fairness within the scholarly publishing ecosystem.
Referee Misconduct
Referee misconduct refers to any inappropriate, unethical, or unprofessional conduct committed by reviewers during the peer-review process. Such misconduct may range from relatively minor concerns, such as rude, biased, delayed, or unconstructive reviews, to more serious violations, including the misuse of confidential information, breach of anonymity, undeclared conflicts of interest, or the appropriation of an author’s ideas, data, arguments, or research findings.
Gema Publica recognizes that reviewers hold a position of considerable trust and responsibility within the scholarly publication process. Reviewers are granted access to privileged and unpublished research materials, and their assessments may significantly influence editorial decisions. Therefore, the journal expects all reviewers to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, integrity, objectivity, fairness, and professionalism.
The journal maintains a clear complaint-handling procedure for addressing allegations of reviewer misconduct. Complaints may be submitted by authors, editors, or other parties who identify possible misconduct during or after the review process. All complaints will be considered carefully and handled in accordance with the principles of fairness, confidentiality, and due process.
For minor forms of misconduct, such as inappropriate language, discourteous comments, excessive delays, or reviews that lack constructive academic value, the editorial team may remove offensive or irrelevant comments from the review report before forwarding it to the author. Reviewers who repeatedly submit poor-quality, late, biased, or unprofessional reviews may be removed from the journal’s reviewer database and will not be invited to review future manuscripts.
For serious allegations, including the suspected misuse of unpublished data, plagiarism of ideas, breach of confidentiality, or conflicts of interest that were not disclosed, the Editor-in-Chief may initiate a formal investigation. This may involve reviewing the relevant correspondence, consulting associate editors, requesting clarification from the reviewer concerned, and, where necessary, referring the matter to the reviewer’s institution or relevant ethical body. Appropriate actions will be taken based on the severity of the misconduct and the evidence available.
Corrections to Published Articles
Gema Publica acknowledges that honest errors may occur in scientific research and scholarly publishing. When such errors are identified after publication, and when they do not invalidate the overall findings or conclusions of the article, the journal may issue a correction notice.
Authors are expected to promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief if they discover or are informed of factual errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in their published article. Corrections may also be initiated by editors, readers, or other parties when a substantive error is identified. The decision to publish a correction rests with the editorial team, based on the nature and significance of the error.
A correction notice will be published in the next available online issue of the journal. The online version of the article will be linked to the correction notice, and the correction notice will likewise be linked to the original article. Where applicable, correction notices will be indexed and connected to the original publication record in relevant indexing databases and repositories.
Retractions
Retractions are issued when there is clear evidence that the findings or conclusions of a published article are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct or honest error. Gema Publica may consider retraction in cases involving, but not limited to, fabricated or falsified data, plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, unethical research practices, serious methodological flaws, unauthorized use of data, or other violations of publication ethics.
When concerns about an article are under investigation, but the evidence is not yet conclusive, the journal may publish an expression of concern. This notice informs readers that the integrity or reliability of the article is being examined while the investigation is ongoing.
All retraction notices will clearly state the reason for the retraction and, where appropriate, identify who is initiating it. Retraction notices will be published online and linked to the original article. When an article has already been included in a journal issue, the original article record will be retained to preserve the scholarly record. However, the article will be clearly marked as retracted. The PDF version may be replaced or watermarked with the phrase “Retracted Version” to ensure that readers are aware of its status.
In exceptional cases, such as those involving legal concerns, privacy violations, defamatory content, or risks of serious harm, the journal may remove the full text of the article from public access. In such circumstances, the article metadata, including the title and author information, will normally remain available, accompanied by a notice explaining that the article has been removed for legal or ethical reasons.
Retraction notices will be indexed, where possible, and linked to the original publication record in relevant databases, repositories, and indexing services. The purpose of retraction is not to punish authors, but to correct the scholarly record and maintain the integrity, transparency, and reliability of academic publishing.
Through these procedures, Gema Publica reaffirms its commitment to ethical peer review, responsible editorial practice, and the preservation of academic integrity in scholarly communication.
Gema Publica acknowledges the increasing influence of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in scientific research, academic writing, and editorial processes. The development of AI technologies offers significant benefits, including assistance in language editing, translation, data processing, and analytical support. At the same time, the use of such technologies raises important ethical concerns related to authorship, originality, accountability, research integrity, and transparency in scholarly communication. In response to these developments, Gema Publica establishes the following general guidelines governing the responsible use of AI by authors, reviewers, and editors.
First and foremost, the journal affirms that responsibility for published scientific content must remain entirely with human actors. Under no circumstances may AI tools be recognized or listed as authors of scholarly articles, peer reviews, or editorial decisions. Authorship requires intellectual contribution, ethical accountability, and legal responsibility, all of which can only be assumed by human researchers, reviewers, and editors.
For authors, the use of AI tools for supportive or technical purposes, such as grammar correction, language refinement, translation assistance, or stylistic improvement, is permitted, provided that such use is transparently disclosed in the manuscript. When AI is employed in more substantive stages of the research process, including literature review, text generation, data analysis, coding, interpretation, or model development, authors must explicitly explain this use in the methods section. The disclosure should include the name of the AI tool, the version used, where applicable, and the specific purpose for which it was employed. This requirement is intended to ensure that readers, reviewers, and editors can clearly assess the extent and implications of AI involvement in the research process. When AI is an integral component of the research method, authors are encouraged to follow relevant international standards and transparency protocols.
Reviewers and editors are likewise expected to apply AI tools responsibly and ethically. Reviewers may use AI only for auxiliary purposes, such as summarizing text, checking language clarity, or assisting with organizing review notes. However, the critical evaluation of a manuscript’s originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, data validity, ethical soundness, and scientific relevance must remain the sole responsibility of the human reviewer. Similarly, editors and associate editors may use AI to support administrative or preliminary editorial tasks, such as initial screening, language assessment, or similarity checking. Nevertheless, all editorial judgments and final decisions must be made exclusively by human editors. Any use of AI by reviewers or editors must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief to maintain transparency and accountability within the editorial process.
Gema Publica strictly prohibits any form of AI-related manipulation that may compromise the integrity of the publication process. This includes, but is not limited to, the insertion of hidden prompts, concealed instructions, or embedded commands within manuscripts, supplementary files, or review documents intended to influence AI-assisted screening, reviewing, or editorial assessment. Such practices are considered unethical because they undermine fairness, transparency, and the credibility of scholarly evaluation.
The journal further reaffirms its commitment to promoting awareness, education, and responsible use of AI in academic publishing. These guidelines will be reviewed and updated periodically in accordance with technological developments, international publication ethics standards, and best practices in scholarly communication.
In conclusion, Gema Publica accepts and supports the responsible use of AI when it enhances clarity, efficiency, accuracy, and transparency in scientific writing and editorial work. However, AI must never replace human responsibility, intellectual judgment, or ethical accountability. Human oversight remains a fundamental, non-negotiable principle at every stage of the scientific publication process.
Key Recommendations
Gema Publica does not accept advertisements, promotional materials, sponsored content, or commercial endorsements from any individual, institution, organization, or external party. The journal does not endorse, recommend, or promote any product, service, brand, institution, commercial interest, or other form of promotional activity within its publications or associated publication platforms.
This policy is established to safeguard the journal’s editorial independence, prevent potential conflicts of interest, and ensure that all published content remains fully oriented toward scholarly communication, academic integrity, and the advancement of knowledge in the field of public administration.
