JPPMI | ETHICAL STANDARDS
Responsible community engagement, protection of participants, ethical program implementation, and humane treatment of animals.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) is committed to ethical community engagement, respect for human dignity, protection of participating communities, and appropriate animal welfare standards.
This policy applies to manuscripts reporting community education, empowerment, training, mentoring, program evaluation, technology transfer, health promotion, agricultural extension, animal husbandry assistance, veterinary outreach, and other community-based interventions within the journal's scope.
Ethical requirements must be proportionate to the objectives, procedures, foreseeable risks, and participants or animals involved. Authors must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, professional standards, and relevant ethics committee or regulatory decisions.
PART I | HUMAN PARTICIPANTS
Community engagement involving individuals or groups must respect participant safety, dignity, autonomy, privacy, and the cultural context of the community.
The need for formal ethical review depends on the nature of the activity, its risks, institutional requirements, and whether it includes human-participant research.
Routine education, mentoring, technical training, and other minimal-risk community service activities may not require formal research ethics committee approval when applicable institutional and national requirements do not mandate such review. Appropriate community permissions, voluntary participation, and privacy safeguards remain necessary.
Formal ethical review, authorization, or an institutional exemption determination may be required for health interventions, biological measurements, research-oriented data collection, sensitive personal information, systematic participant evaluation, activities involving vulnerable populations, or procedures presenting more than minimal risk.
When the need for ethics approval is uncertain, authors should consult the responsible institutional authority or ethics committee before undertaking the relevant procedures. An author's self-declared exemption must not replace a formal institutional determination where one is required.
Important Distinction: Classifying an activity as community service does not automatically exempt it from ethical review. The actual procedures, participant risks, data collection, and applicable requirements determine the appropriate oversight.
Authors must obtain appropriate permissions from community partners, institutions, or relevant authorities when required for program implementation.
Individual informed consent must be obtained where applicable. Participants should receive understandable information about the activities, purpose, procedures, foreseeable risks, voluntary participation, and intended use of collected information.
Consent for participation and consent for publication are distinct. Identifiable photographs, videos, recordings, quotations, and personal information require appropriate publication consent.
Additional safeguards are necessary when community programs involve individuals or groups who may experience increased risk, limited autonomy, dependency, or barriers to providing informed consent.
Appropriate safeguards may include:
Authors must collect, process, store, share, and report participant and community information responsibly.
Authors should describe how participant privacy and confidentiality were protected during program implementation, evaluation, and dissemination.
PART II | ANIMAL WELFARE
JPPMI recognizes that community engagement programs may involve livestock, companion animals, aquaculture species, or other animals in agriculture, veterinary services, animal health, food production, and community livelihood activities.
Authors must ensure that animal-related activities comply with applicable animal welfare legislation, relevant professional standards, and institutional requirements.
Relevant welfare considerations include:
Involvement of animals in community service does not automatically mean that experimental animal ethics approval is required. The need for formal review depends on the actual procedures and applicable requirements.
Ethical oversight must reflect the type and risk of animal-related activities.
| Activity Category | Ethical Expectations |
|---|---|
| Animal Husbandry Education | Community or owner permission, safe demonstrations, competent supervision, and respect for animal welfare. |
| Feeding and Farm Management Assistance | Appropriate husbandry practices, safe feed use, monitoring, and institutional review where required by intervention risk. |
| Veterinary Outreach and Animal Health Programs | Qualified personnel, appropriate owner permission, veterinary standards, and animal welfare safeguards. |
| Invasive or Experimental Animal Procedures | Prior formal ethics approval where required, scientific justification, trained personnel, and measures to minimize harm. |
When animal use constitutes an experimental or scientific procedure, authors should follow relevant ethical principles, including the 3Rs where applicable.
Use appropriate alternatives to animal procedures whenever scientifically and practically feasible.
Use the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve justified scientific objectives without compromising appropriate evaluation.
Improve procedures, handling, care, and monitoring to minimize pain, distress, and potential harm.
The 3Rs apply to relevant scientific animal use and do not imply that all routine livestock education or veterinary outreach must be classified as experimental animal research.
Authors conducting animal-related activities must determine whether ethics committee approval, veterinary authorization, owner permission, institutional clearance, or other documentation is required.
The editorial team may request additional documentation if ethical oversight or animal welfare protections are unclear.
PART III | MANUSCRIPT REPORTING
Authors must accurately disclose the ethical information relevant to the community engagement activities reported in their manuscripts.
Editorial Requirement: Authors must not fabricate approval numbers, misrepresent exemptions, describe undocumented consent as obtained, or present retrospective documentation as if it constituted prior approval.
The following examples may be adapted to accurately describe the ethical oversight of a community engagement program.
"This program and its evaluation received ethical approval from [name of committee], approval number [number], dated [date]. Relevant participant consent and institutional permissions were obtained."
"The responsible institutional authority determined that this activity was exempt from formal ethics review under [applicable criteria]. The determination was issued by [institution], reference [number, if available], dated [date]."
"Formal research ethics review was not required for this routine, minimal-risk community service activity under the applicable institutional requirements. Appropriate community permissions, voluntary participation, and privacy safeguards were observed."
"The animal-related community engagement activities were conducted with appropriate owner or institutional permission and in accordance with applicable animal welfare requirements. [Describe the relevant ethical approval or authorized determination, if required.]"
These statements are illustrative only. Authors must select and adapt the wording to reflect the actual activities, oversight decisions, permissions, and documentation. Bracketed text must be replaced or removed before submission.
The editorial team may examine ethical declarations, request clarification or supporting documents, and consult appropriately qualified experts when concerns arise regarding participant protection, animal welfare, consent, or institutional oversight.
Manuscripts may be returned for clarification, declined, or subject to further assessment when ethical requirements have not been met or serious concerns remain unresolved.
Concerns identified after publication will be handled according to JPPMI's publication ethics and post-publication correction or retraction procedures. Appropriate actions depend on the nature, severity, and available evidence of the concern.
Ethical oversight of human-participant activities must follow applicable national regulations, institutional requirements, professional standards, and decisions of the responsible ethics committee or authority.
Relevant Indonesian animal welfare legislation includes Law No. 18 of 2009 concerning Animal Husbandry and Animal Health, as amended, and Government Regulation No. 95 of 2012 concerning Veterinary Public Health and Animal Welfare.
Authors are responsible for determining and complying with the current requirements applicable to their institution, program location, participant population, animal species, and procedures.
