Every article published in the Jurnal Kesehatan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan is an original manuscript, not published double, does not contain elements of plagiarism, and has been through a peer review process to ensure the quality of the articles in order to contribute to science in the field of elementary education. The editing team does not reveal any personal information about the manuscript to anyone other than the author, but upholds the objectivity in making decisions publishing articles.  Editors, authors, and reviewers of the Jurnal Kesehatan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan are to be fully committed to good publication practice and they accept the responsibility for fulfilling the duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

• All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
• Review process are blind peer review.
• The factors that are taken into account in review are relevant, sound, significant, original, and readable  language.
• The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
• If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised manuscript will be accepted.
• Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
• The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
• No research can be included in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities 

• Certifying that their manuscripts are their original work.
• Certifying that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
• Certifying that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
• Participating in the peer review process.
• Providing retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• Mentioning in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
• Stating that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
• Notifying the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
• Identifying all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
• Reporting any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities 

• Keeping all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
• Conducting objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
• Expressing their views clearly with supporting arguments
• Identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Contacting to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Reviewing 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities 

• Having authority to reject/accept an article.
• Justifying the contents and overall quality of the publication.
• Considering the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
• Guaranting the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Publishing errata pages or make corrections when needed.
• Having a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
• Taking their decisions solely based on one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
• Iqnoring  previous editors' decision 
• Keeping the reviewers' anomities
• Ensuring that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
• Accepting a paper 
• Acting a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable decision in the persistance in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
• Rejecting papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
• Not allowing any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.