FISIO MU Physiotherapy Evidences (printed ISSN 2722-9610 & e-ISSN: 2722-9629) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal. To that extent, it clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the article publication of FISIO MU including the authors, the chief editors, the Editorial Boards, the peer-reviewers and the publishers (Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
ETHICAL GUIDELINE FOR JOURNAL PUBLICATION
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Administrasi Kesehatan Indonesia is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of noledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the authors’ work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific methods. It is, therefore, important to agree with the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the publishing process: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publishers and the society.
Universitas Airlangga as publisher of Jurnal Administrasi Kesehatan Indonesia takes it's duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously. We recognize our ethical and other responsibilities in ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Faculty of Public Health Universitas Airlangga and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers if necessary.
DUTIES OF EDITOR
Publication Decisions
The editor of the Jurnal Administrasi Kesehatan Indonesia is responsible for deciding which of articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work and it's importance to researchers and readers must always drive for publishing process. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as it shall than be in force at libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making dis decision.
Process Control
Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. After passing this test, the manuscript is forwarded to one reviewer or more for double-blind peer review, each of whom will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript. The review period will be given up to 21 days at least but can last up to a month and a half.
Fair Play
Editors at any time evaluate manuscripts for there intellectual content regardless to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editors and any editorial board members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without a written consent of the author.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviewers assist the editors in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the authors may also assist the authors in improving there papers.
Promptness
Any selected referees who feel unqualified to review the research or no that it's prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse themselves from the review process.
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 editors.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express there views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention about any substantial similarity or overlapping manuscript under consideration and any other published papers of which they have personal noledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer reviews must be kept confidentially and not used for personal interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts which have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions corresponded to the papers.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of it's significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or noingly inaccurate statements constituting unethical behaviour are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data of the paper for editorial review and should prepare to provide public access to the data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases). If practicable, they should in any event prepare to retain the data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and that the authors have used the work and/or words of others that are appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Authors 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 behaviour, and such behaviour is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acnoledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported works.
Authorship of the Paper
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. If there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they shall be acnoledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding authors should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the papers and have agreed with it's submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, human, animals, and microbes, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in there use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in there manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of there manuscript. All sources of financial supports for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published work
When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors or publishers and cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper.
FISIO MU Physiotherapy Evidences
