Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests Policy

A competing interest exists when a financial, professional, institutional, academic, personal, intellectual, commercial, legal, or other relationship could reasonably influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, an individual's judgment concerning a manuscript or publication.

Competing interests may be actual, potential, or perceived. Individuals involved in ALFI's publication process should therefore consider not only whether they personally believe they can remain impartial, but also whether a reasonable external observer could question the independence of their judgment.

Authors must disclose all relevant competing interests associated with the submitted work. The disclosure should be sufficiently specific to allow editors and readers to understand the nature of the relationship without requiring unnecessary disclosure of irrelevant private information.

Authors must disclose relevant financial support, funding sources, commercial relationships, institutional relationships, patents, intellectual property interests, advisory roles, employment, consultancy arrangements, or other circumstances that could reasonably influence the research or its presentation.

Where no relevant competing interest exists, authors should provide an explicit statement indicating that they have no competing interests to declare.

Where no conflict exists, authors may use a statement such as: “The authors declare that they have no competing interests.”

Where a competing interest exists, authors should describe the relevant relationship clearly and concisely. Disclosure should not be replaced by vague statements such as “potential conflicts may exist” when the underlying relationship can reasonably be identified.

Authors must identify relevant funding sources and grant information accurately. Where a funder, sponsor, company, institution, or other organization had a role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, publication decisions, or another material aspect of the research, that role should be disclosed.

Where a funding source had no role in the research design, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or decision to publish, authors may state this explicitly where relevant. Funding does not automatically constitute a disqualifying competing interest, but its existence and influence must be transparent.

Reviewers must assess whether they can evaluate an assigned manuscript objectively and independently before accepting a review invitation. A reviewer who has a relevant financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, or other conflict should disclose the relationship promptly to the responsible editor.

Where the conflict could reasonably compromise impartiality, the reviewer should decline the invitation. Examples may include close collaboration with an author, direct supervisory relationships, substantial personal relationships, significant professional competition, relevant commercial interests, or other circumstances creating a meaningful risk of bias.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent only after review has begun, the reviewer should stop the assessment and contact the editor for guidance rather than continuing without disclosure.

Editors must disclose relationships that could compromise or appear to compromise their independence in handling a manuscript. A conflicted editor must not control reviewer selection, access confidential review information beyond what is necessary, participate in editorial deliberation, or make the publication decision concerning that manuscript.

When a conflict exists, the manuscript must be reassigned to another qualified editor with sufficient independence. Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may designate an independent handling editor or another appropriate individual who has no relevant competing interest.

Institutional affiliation is assessed according to context rather than by name alone. Employment at a large university or organization does not automatically establish a disqualifying conflict when the individuals have no meaningful professional relationship. However, close departmental relationships, active collaboration, direct supervision, shared projects, or other substantial institutional connections may require recusal.

Editors and Editorial Board members are permitted to submit manuscripts to ALFI, but their editorial position must not influence the handling or outcome of the submission. Such manuscripts are not entitled to preferential treatment, expedited acceptance, reduced scrutiny, or exemption from independent external peer review.

An editor or Editorial Board member who is an author must be fully recused from the editorial process for that submission. The manuscript must be handled by an independent editor without a relevant competing interest and must undergo the same minimum peer-review requirements that apply to other research submissions.

Where appropriate, the published article may include a statement explaining that an author holds an editorial position with the journal and confirming that the individual had no involvement in peer review or editorial decision-making for the article.

Where relevant, ALFI may use a disclosure such as: “The author is a member of the Editorial Board of ALFI and had no involvement in the peer-review process or editorial decision for this article. The manuscript was handled independently by an editor with no relevant competing interest.”

Guest Editors and individuals responsible for special issues or thematic collections are subject to the same competing-interest standards as regular editors. They must not handle manuscripts in which they are authors, co-authors, close collaborators, supervisors, family members, direct institutional partners, or otherwise materially conflicted.

A manuscript affected by such a conflict must be handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who has no relevant competing interest. Guest-edited content remains subject to ALFI's ordinary peer-review and publication-ethics requirements.

ALFI's institutional affiliation and publishing arrangements do not confer authority to determine the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts. Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and WISE Pendidikan Indonesia may support the journal's institutional, administrative, technical, financial, and publishing infrastructure, but must not override independent scholarly editorial decisions.

Manuscripts involving individuals affiliated with the journal's institutional or publishing organizations must be evaluated according to the same standards of independence, peer review, ethical compliance, and scholarly merit applied to other submissions.

Financial support, sponsorship, institutional funding, commercial relationships, or other revenue arrangements must not determine editorial outcomes. The absence of an Article Processing Charge likewise does not create preferential access to publication for any institution, sponsor, funder, editor, partner, or affiliated individual.

Acceptance decisions are based on scope relevance, originality, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, ethical compliance, peer-review evidence, and editorial judgment rather than financial benefit or organizational influence.

The appropriate response to a disclosed competing interest depends on its nature and seriousness. In some circumstances, transparent disclosure is sufficient. In others, the journal may require an editor or reviewer to recuse themselves, reassign the manuscript, obtain additional independent review, publish a disclosure statement, or implement another safeguard necessary to preserve editorial independence.

ALFI may request additional clarification where a disclosure is incomplete, ambiguous, or potentially significant. Failure to provide requested information may delay editorial processing or prevent the manuscript from proceeding.

Authors, reviewers, and editors should favor transparency when uncertain whether a relationship is relevant. Disclosure allows the Editorial Team to assess the situation appropriately, whereas failure to disclose a material relationship may create a more serious publication-integrity concern.

Information concerning competing interests will be handled with appropriate confidentiality during editorial evaluation. However, relevant author disclosures may be published with the article when necessary to provide readers with transparent information concerning relationships that may be relevant to interpretation of the work.

Failure to disclose a relevant competing interest may constitute a publication-integrity concern, particularly where the undisclosed relationship could reasonably have influenced the research, manuscript presentation, peer review, or editorial decision.

The journal will assess whether the omission was inadvertent, immaterial, significant, or potentially deliberate. Editorial action will be proportionate to the effect of the undisclosed interest on the integrity and transparency of the publication process.

If a relevant competing interest is identified after publication, ALFI will determine whether the published record requires clarification or correction. Where the omission does not undermine the reliability of the research, publication of an appropriate disclosure or correction may be sufficient.

Where an undisclosed competing interest is associated with manipulation, compromised peer review, serious misrepresentation, unreliable findings, or another major integrity problem, further action may include an Expression of Concern, retraction, institutional referral, or other appropriate response in accordance with ALFI's Publication Ethics and Corrections & Retractions Policy.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that relevant competing interests involving editors and Editorial Board members are managed appropriately. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict, responsibility for the manuscript or matter must be transferred to an independent qualified editor who has no such conflict.

Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Industry (ALFI) is affiliated with Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and formally published by WISE Pendidikan Indonesia. Institutional affiliation and publishing support do not give either organization authority to override the independent scholarly judgment of the journal's responsible editors.

This Conflict of Interest & Competing Interests Policy should be read together with ALFI's Authorship & Contributorship Policy, Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Corrections & Retractions Policy, Funding Disclosure requirements, and other applicable editorial policies. ALFI may revise this policy when necessary to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing.