Publication Ethics | Makara Journal of Health Research | Universitas Indonesia | Universitas Indonesia
  •  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics

For research manuscripts involving experiments on live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institute and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details. Manuscripts that lack proper ethical consideration for human or animal subjects will not be accepted for publication.

For experiments that involve human subjects, authors must identify the committee that approved the experiments and include in their submission a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Authors using phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials in their study should refer to the CONSORT Statement for recommendations which facilitates complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. The MJHR follows the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all aspects of publication ethics, in particular, protocols of research and publication misconduct. The authors must declare that all experiments on human subjects were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and that all procedures were carried out with the adequate understanding and written consent of the subjects. The authors must also certify that formal approval to conduct the experiments described was obtained from the human subjects review board of their institution and should be made available if requested by the MJHR.

All animal experiments must adhere to institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animal subjects, and this should be clearly stated within the manuscript. Manuscripts should contain a statement that advises all efforts were made to minimise animal suffering and reduce the number of animals used, and if available, efforts to utilise alternatives to in-vivo techniques. Studies involving animals should obey the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research as developed by the Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).

The MJHR adheres to the COPE guidelines that ensures a high-quality standard of ethics for authors, editors, and reviewers:

Authors

  1. Authors attest that the material has not been previously published and that they have not transferred any rights to the article to another party.
  2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and must properly cite others work in accordance with the approved references format.
  3. Authors should not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
  4. Authors should ensure that they follow the criteria for authorship as described in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
  5. The authors must not disclose any personal information that may identify their subjects, such as overt descriptions, photographs or pedigrees. If photographs of the patient are essential to the article, the authors must receive written consent and state it clearly within the article.
  6. When human subjects are involved, the authors must certify that their research is in accordance with ethical standards of The Helsinki Declaration, and domestic and foreign committees that preside over human experiments. If any doubts are raised over whether the research was conducted in accordance with the declaration, the authors must respond to those doubts. Similarly, if animals are involved in the research process, authors must certify that all domestic and foreign guidelines relating to the experiments on animals in a laboratory were adhered to.
  7. Authors should make all data and details of their work available to the editors if there are suspicions of data falsification or fabrication.
  8. Authors of the article should clarify any possible conflicts of interest such as their job role, research expenses, consultant expenses, and intellectual property.

 

Editors

  1. Editors are responsible for every article published in the MJHR.
  2. Editors should assist authors, where possible, to ensure their articles adhere to ICMJE guidelines.
  3. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making final decisions regarding publication.
  4. An editor must evaluate manuscripts objectively for publication; judging each on its merit without bias towards nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors. Editors should decline articles if there is a potential conflict of interest.
  5. Editors must ensure that documents sent to reviewers do not contain private information of the authors and vice versa.
  6. The editor's final decision should be relayed to authors in a timely fashion and will be accompanied by the reviewer's comments, unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks.
  7. If authors have a well-reasoned objection to a certain individual reviewing their work, editors should respect this request.
  8. Editors and all staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
  9. Editors will be guided by the COPE guidelines if there is a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.

 

Reviewers

  1. Reviewers are required to comment on possible research, ethical, and publication misconduct if they are suspected.
  2. Reviewers must complete the work in a timely manner and should notify the editor immediately if they cannot complete the work.
  3. Reviewers are to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript.
  4. Reviewers should not accept manuscripts for assessment if they believe there is a potential conflict of interest between them and any of the authors.

 

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in proposing, producing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results.

  1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
  3. Manipulative citation is characterized by behaviors intended to inflate citation counts for personal gains, such as excessive self-citation of an author’s own work, excessive citation to the journal publishing the citing article, or excessive citation between journals in a coordinated manner.
  4. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism excludes authorship, credit, or collaboration disputes, intellectual property, or patent disputes.
  5. Research misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion.

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.

As members of COPE, MJHR will follow the COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct. In cases of suspected research or publication 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. It may be necessary for the Editors to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, such as the author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s). MJHR may also seek advice from COPE and discuss anonymized cases in the COPE Forum. 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 involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of 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 the coauthors, 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 the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, MJHR will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

{ top }

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author, and the Corresponding Author must send a letter to the Editors requesting the changes. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript.

Any potential authorship disputes brought to the editors’ attention will be handled in line with COPE guidelines.

{ top }

Complaints and Appeals

Any authors who may have grievances about any aspect of their interaction with the MJHR should e-mail the Editor-in-Chief at mjhr@ui.ac.id. Every effort will be made to acknowledge the complaint within 7 days of receiving it. If required, the Editor-in-Chief will consult with other editors regarding the complaint. The Editor-in-Chief will liaise directly with the complainant and thoroughly explain the steps to resolve the matter. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines.

{ top }

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

MJHR requires authors to declare all conflicts of interest in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘Conflict of Interest’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no conflict of interest, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no conflict of interest”. The Editor may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Authors are also required to disclose all sources of institutional, private, and corporate financial support for their study. the research funding sources will be published under a separate heading entitled “Funding”. See www.icmje.org for generally accepted definitions of conflicts of interest.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. If a submitting author and editor of MJHR have a relationship that may create a perception of bias, an alternative editor from another institute will be elected to oversee the manuscript. This editor will select the reviewers and make the final decision on the paper. The submitting editor will not have access to any information or correspondence relating to the submission that is not meant for the authors.

Potential conflict of interest for reviewers. The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: ‘If you know, or think you know, the identity of the author, or if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this paper (e.g., friendship or conflict/rivalry), please declare it immediately. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.' If a conflict of interest has been declared, standard policy declares that an alternate reviewer must be used; however, this is at the editors' discretion.

MJHR will follow the COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of potential conflict of interest, whether identified before or after publication.

{ top }

Data and Reproducibility

MJHR encourages authors to include supplementary material data sets and code, if any, that demonstrate the results shown in their final article. MJHR policy encouraging the authors to share and make the data open is applicable only where this does not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns. MJHR policies on data and reproducibility are based on the COPE guidelines.

{ top }

Ethical Oversight

If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, Authors must provide legal, ethical clearance from an association or legal organization.

If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

{ top }

Intellectual Property

Journal policy about intellectual property or copyright is declared here: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/mjhr/copyright.html

{ top }

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

MJHR accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by readers. In case the reader gives discussions and corrections toward a published article, the reader can contact the Editor in Chief by explaining the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the Editor in Chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. Respected Authors can reply/answer the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the Editor in Chief. Therefore, Editors may publish the answer as a Reply to Letter to the Editor.

{ top }