It is necessary to agree upon common standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

1. Author provides a letter of statement stating that the article submitted is an original script from opus or research result that has never been submitted in any journal or other publishing whether online or printed, that the script does not contain any indication of plagiarism, and include references, quotations, and citation correctly in accordance with the rules of scientific paper.
2. Author is oblige to follow the provided writing instruction. The writing instruction can be downloaded in Idealog website for every submitted script. The writing instruction covers method of content presentation and writing standards.
3. Every script received will go through two review steps. First review by editorial board member to check indication of plagiarism through iThenticate. Second review is bind peer review to check content quality by external reviewer in accordance with the competence and content of script. Any script having plagiarism indication or possesing content similarity over 15% will be returned to author for revision, while script possessing plagiarism indication over 50% will be returned and unpublished (rejected).
4. Authors of 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.
5. 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.
6. An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
7. 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.
8. 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. 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.
9. 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.
10.  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.
11.  Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
12. 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 plagiarism indicated.