Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) is a peer-reviewed nasional journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, explains what is meant by research misconduct, and outlines the roles and duties of the author, the chief editor, the editorial board, the peer reviewer and the publisher (Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (LPPM) STIKES Suaka Insan Banjarmasin). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal such as Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.
Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (LPPM) STIKES Suaka Insan Banjarmasin as the publisher of JKI takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenues have no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Program Studi Ilmu Keperawatan dan Profesi Ners, overall the Faculty of STIKES Suaka Insan Banjarmasin and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article. The first step of the process involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
Duties of Editors or Section Editors
1. Publication Decisions. The editors of Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validity of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2. Fair Play. An editor, at any time, evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. Confidentiality. The editors 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.
4. Review of Manuscripts. Each manuscript must be initially evaluated for originality by the editors. Editors should organize and use peer reviews fairly and wisely, explain their peer-review processes in the information provided to authors, and indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest. 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.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor in order to be excused from the review process.
3. Confidentiality. 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.
4. Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement relating to an observation, derivation, or argument that has 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 have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts over 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 paper.
Duties of Authors
1. Reporting standards. Authors of reports 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.
2. Data Access, Retention, and Reproducibility. 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, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. The authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
3. Originality and Plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
6. Authorship and Contributorship of the Article.
a. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
b. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
c. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are listed in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. All authors should clarify anything that may cause conflicts of interest, such as work, research expenses, consultant expenses, and intellectual property, on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) disclosure form (which can be accessed and downloaded through conflicts of interest form link)
8. Fundamental Errors in Published Work. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The Copy Editor is responsible for the validity of the grammar, conformity with the journal format, writing style, bibliography, and references.
The Layout Editor is responsible for setting the appearance of the journal to be published, with regards to layout and image format settings, and article format conversion.
Complaints and Appeals
Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, the Editorial Board, or the publisher. Complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal’s business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editors/reviewers, peer-review manipulation, etc. Complaint cases will be processed according to the COPE guidelines. Complaint cases should be sent by email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, or procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey the ethical conduct of research. If required, authors must provide legal ethical clearance from the relevant association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and/or business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify whether the data or information will be classified or not.
Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)
Journal policy regarding intellectual property or copyright is declared here: https://journal.stikessuakainsan.ac.id/index.php/jksi/CopyrightNotice
Peer-Review Process Policy
Peer-Review process/policy is declared here: https://journal.stikessuakainsan.ac.id/index.php/jksi/PeerReviewProcess
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) accepts discussion of and corrections to published articles by the reader. The reader can contact the editor in chief by email to explain discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the editor in chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in the next issue as letters to the editor. The respective authors can answer discussions and corrections from readers by sending their reply to the editor in chief. Therefore, editors may publish such answers as replies to letters to the editor.