The publication code of ethics of Galois: Mathematics Education Research Journal refers to the Regulation of the Head of LIPI Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications which refers to COPE. The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications basically upholds three ethical values in publication, namely (1) neutrality, which is free from conflicts of interest in managing publications; (2) justice, which is giving authorship rights to those entitled as authors; and (3) honesty, which is free from duplication, fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (DF2P) in publication. By adhering to these three ethical values, this Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications is able to guide managers, editors, peer reviewers, authors and sponsors/third parties in the scientific journal publication system to always comply with the code of ethics, follow standards and accept responsibility for good scientific publication management practices as will be explained in detail in the following subsection:

Journal Manager Code of Ethics

1. The journal manager determines the name of the journal, scope of science, periodicity and accreditation.
2. Journal managers determine the membership of the editorial board.
3. Journal managers define the relationship between publishers, editors, reviewers, and other parties in the contract.
4. Respect confidential matters for contributing researchers, authors, editors and reviewers.
5. Implement norms and provisions regarding intellectual property rights, especially copyright.
6. Conduct policy reviews on journals and present them to authors, editorial boards, reviewers, and readers.
7. Create code of conduct guidelines for editors and reviewers.
8. journals regularly and according to the specified timeline.
9. Ensure the availability of resources for sustainable journal publication.
10. Build cooperation and marketing.
11. Prepare licensing and other legal aspects.

Editor's Code of Ethics

1. Meet the needs of readers and authors.
2. Improve the quality of publications sustainably.
3. Implement and prioritize the process, to ensure the quality of written works (articles) to be published.
4. Prioritize freedom of opinion objectively.
5. Maintain the integrity and academic track record of authors.
6. Submit corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and apologies if there are things that need to be followed up.
7. Responsible for the style and format of the writing, while the content and all statements of responsibility of the author.
8. Actively soliciting opinions from authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members for the quality of publications.
9. Re-evaluating the journal if it is found to be inconsistent with the rules of Scientific Publication. 10. Supporting initiatives to reduce research and publication errors.
10. Reviewing the effects of publication policies on the attitudes of authors and reviewers, and improving them, as a form of responsibility and to minimize errors.

Reviewer Code of Ethics

1. Accepting assignments from the editors to review articles and submitting the results of the review to the editors, to determine the suitability of the article for publication.
2. Reviewing articles in a timely manner in accordance with environmental style guidelines based on scientific principles (data collection methods, author legality, conclusions, etc.).
3. Reviewing articles that have been corrected according to standards.
4. Encouraging authors to improve articles by providing input, suggestions, and recommendations.
5. Maintaining the privacy of authors by not disseminating the results of corrections, suggestions and recommendations.
6. Reviewers may not review any article that involves the reviewer in their work, either directly or indirectly.
7. Follow peer review guidelines in reviewing articles and assessing the article evaluation form provided by the editor.
8. Review articles substantively without correcting grammar, punctuation, and typos.
9. Guarantee the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritize the benefits of written works for the development of science, technology, and innovation; also understand their impact on the development of scientific writing.
10. Prohibit in maintaining one's own opinion, the author or a third party that can result in the decision reference being non-objective.
11. Uphold the value of objectivity and be free from any influence.
12. Guarantee the confidentiality of findings in articles until published.
13. Have a broad understanding of expertise and the ability to provide article reviews appropriately and correctly.
14. Refuse to conduct research reviews that are not in their field of expertise. 15. Have an open-minded personality in accepting new opinions or views from others that differ from their personal opinions.
15. Refuse to conduct a review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be achieved. If not, the reviewer must notify the editor as early as possible.
16. Provide rejection of the last recommendation against the last choice regarding the eligibility of the written work or with indications of serious violations.
17. Rejecting the final recommendation against the final choice regarding the eligibility of the paper or with indications of serious violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
18. Articles that have been reviewed must not be used for personal or third party interests. In addition, the use of part of the contents of the reviewed paper must be permitted by the author. The results of the review must be presented honestly, objectively, and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are (a) Accepted without revision; (b) Accepted with minor revisions (after revision by the author, no need to go to peer review); (c) Accepted with major revisions (after revision by the author, return to peer review for re-review); (d) Rejected and recommended for other publications; or (e) Rejected and recommended not to be published to any publication because the paper is scientifically flawed for the community.

Author Code of Ethics

1. The author is collectively responsible for the work and content of the article including methods, analysis, calculations, and details.
2. The author immediately responds to comments made by the reviewer in a professional and timely manner.
3. The author must notify the editor if they withdraw their article.
4. Authors are not allowed to provide a bibliography of publications if they have not read the publication.
5. The author explains the limitations of the research.
6. The author respects the publisher if they demand not to publish the findings in the form of interviews or through other media before publication.
7. If there is an error in the article, the author must immediately notify the editor or publisher.
8. The use of material from other copyrighted publications must be given written permission and gratitude.
9. The author refers to the work of others appropriately in the citations and quotations used in the paper.
10. The author informs the editor about the article which is part of a phased, multidisciplinary, and different perspective research.
11. The author makes a statement that the article submitted for publication is original, has not been published anywhere in any language, and is not in the process of being submitted to another publisher.
12. When reporting new findings or improving findings, the author must mention the previous work of the researcher/author/founder.
13. If requested, the author prepares evidence that the research has met the requirements of research ethics including field notes.

The author is sufficient to respond if there are comments or feedback after the article is published.