Publication Ethics


Allegations of Misconduct

Author Marcapada presents its paper as the result of scientific research and must be presented appropriately, objectively, and provide significant results. The data presented must be accurate. Papers must be written in detail, contain sufficient references, and maybe replicated or referenced by others. Presenting inaccurate statements is unethical and unacceptable.

Author and Contribution

Authorship policy and contributions at Marcapada are limited to those who make significant contributions to the manuscript, both concept, design, implementation, interpretation of research results. All parties who have significant contributions should be referred to as co-authors, while others who contribute to and/or participate in some of the substance in the research project should be referred to as contributors. The author is responsible for identifying and determining the contributions of each party involved in the research, and the extent of his or her contribution to the entire manuscript. All authors must be informed of the final version of the manuscript and agree to be published.

Originality and Plagiarism

All authors are responsible for the authenticity of the manuscript. Citations must be written in accordance with the standards required in Marcapada. It is prohibited to quote, duplicate, copy, or paraphrase some or all of the substance of another work without mentioning references, or claiming the work of others. All forms of plagiarism are considered unethical and unacceptable. All submitted manuscripts will be examined using anti-plagiarism software (iThenticate) by the editor.

Conflict of Interest

To avoid conflicts of interest, all manuscripts that have the potential to cause conflicts of interest, both funding sources and potential misinterpretation of the manuscript, must be mentioned by the author. The editorial board reserves the right to decide the manuscript if the condition is found.

Data and Productivity

The editor may request reference data from the author during the review process. In this condition, the author must provide the requested data.

Ethical Supervision

All manuscripts published by Marcapada are under the author's author's approval. If the manuscript contains research involving the use of animals or human subjects, then the author shall ensure that the manuscript is supplemented with a statement that all processes and procedures have been carried out in accordance with relevant institutional laws and guidelines or based on an authorized institutional committee.

PostPublish Discussion and Correction

When the author finds a fundamental and significant error in a published paper, the author should inform the editor of the journal or publisher and together with the editor withdraw or revise the paper. If the editor finds an error from another party (third party), the author must withdraw the paper through the editor, or revise the paper and provide evidence that the paper is valid and original.

Intellectual Rights

The copyright of the article published in Marcapada is on the author, and the article can be accessed online freely. The publisher has the authority to publish it on other channels as deemed necessary, hardcopy or softcopy. Authors are prohibited from publishing the same article in other publishers, in any form. Submitting the same article to many journals at the same time is also considered unethical and unacceptable. Publications on Marcapada are free of charge, and all fees relating to the publication process are charged to the publisher.

Journal Management

Marcapada is financed by STPN, and the publisher does not charge the author anything. All processes at Marcapada are professionally managed, and publications are managed using the OJS 3 system. Marcapada regularly holds training on management and editorial to maintain the quality of management. Marcapada ensures that all publication processes are conducted independently.


Peer Review Process

The paper submitted to Marcapada undergoes a rigorous peer review to ensure it is in accordance with the scope of the journal and has a newness and good quality. All reviewers uphold the standards set. Reviewers have ethical responsibilities and obligations for both the journal and its author.

Reviewer and Responsibility Guidelines

Reviewers are responsible for reading manuscripts and evaluating the suitability and scientific quality for publication in Marcapada. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, impartial, unambiguous, and honest feedback to the author, with the aim of encouraging them to improve the manuscript. Marcapada's journal is obliged to examine all submitted manuscripts—regardless of whether it will be accepted or must be corrected. Reviews should be critical but not detrimental and should hold on to accurate scientific communication.

Consideration before Reviewing the Manuscript

The reviewer should be confident that he or she has the expertise and time necessary to provide a critical evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers must ensure that the manuscript matches their expertise. The review must be completed within a maximum of 4 weeks. If the reviewer does not feel able to complete the review within a certain period of time, the reviewer must communicate with the editor to request additional time (maximum additional time of 1 week). Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest with the manuscript reviewed. If there is, the reviewer should contact the editor and resign immediately.

Reviewer Ethics

Marcapada relied on the impartiality and discretion of the Reviewer, and as a Reviewer, he was entrusted with the material in "confidential", only for the purposes of evaluation. Therefore, Jurnal Marcapada expects reviewers to handle all documents and correspondence related to the proper review process. It is prohibited to use any information in it for personal gain or to discredit others. It is prohibited to discuss the contents of "any" manuscript with third parties. Make sure that the information in it and details of the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication. Maintain the integrity of the blind review process. Under no circumstances is it prohibited to contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscripts. Must be fair, honest, and objective in evaluating the manuscript. Declare there is a conflict of interest, and immediately back down if you believe you will be not objective.


The Review procedure at Marcapada uses an online peer submission and review system. When a reviewer is asked to review a paper submitted to Marcapada, they will have a journal account created for them, where they can read the abstracts and decide whether to agree to review it. If the reviewer is asked to review the paper, simply log into the reviewer's account, read the abstract provided, and indicate whether the reviewer agreed to check it out. If the reviewer refuses to review the manuscript, please include the reason, and if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer from a similar field.
To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be conducted through the OJS system, with reviewers given access to the full manuscript and provided a review page to fill out and send. Reviewers can also comment directly on the manuscript file by turning on TRACK CHANGES in MS Office, but make sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.


A good review looks at the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and validity of the details. When evaluating Marcapada's manuscript, pay attention to the following aspects:

  1. Is the script within Marcapada's scope? How interesting is this article to journal readers?
  2. The novelty of the research. Is the article new and interesting enough? Does it add new knowledge? How original is this research and has it been shown by gap analysis?
  3. Title suitability. Does the title accurately represent the content?
  4. Quality of content. Does the article comply with Marcapada's standards? Is the research question important and interesting? Do manuscripts help to expand or continue the latest research in their respective fields?
  5. Methods and Methodologies. Is the methodology description informative, clear, and concise? Is the research method used appropriate and correct? How precise is the experimental approach or design?
  6. Significance of results. Do the results have significant implications for agrarian and land studies and/or society, particularly land policy studies?
  7. Suitability of tables, figures, and/or complementary materials. Does every picture/table need to be explained correctly? Does the material match its contents?
  8. Completeness of data. How complete is the data?
  9. Relevance of the discussion. Is the discussion relevant to the results/findings and other content? Have the authors discussed exactly their results in the context of previous research?
  10. Conformity of citations/references. Are all quotes recorded? Is there an appropriate number of citations for the content (not too few or too many)?
  11. Clarity of content. Will Marcapada readers have trouble understanding its contents?

Ethical Considerations

In addition to the above criteria, also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains plagiarism, improper references, republishing, or fraud. Publication ethics are not limited to these four items. If the reviewer believes that the author has tried to mislead the reader, infringed copyright or patent, or may have compromised the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the handling editor.

Good comments

It is important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to improve the quality of the manuscript and help the author to understand where improvements should be made.
Your final recommendation as a reviewer is to recommend whether the manuscript will be a) accepted with minor revisions, b) accepted with major revisions, c) rejected. If the manuscript is rejected, the reviewer must provide an explanation to the author about its justification. Each recommendation should be supported by evaluation results supported by constructive criticism.