Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Folia Medica Indonesiana (FMI) is an open access, peer-reviewed- scientific journal published by The Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia. Folia Medica Indonesiana publishes articles in medicine and health sciences that focuses on (but not limited to) biomedicine, anatomy, histology, biochemistry, physiology, microbiology, parasitology, pathology, pharmacology, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, internal medicine, ophthalmology, surgery, neurology, otolaryngology, cardiology, anaesthesiology; as well as rehabilitative medicine, public health, and preventive medicine. Articles published inculding an original research report, case report/ case series, randomized controlled trial, review (scoping review, systematic review, or invited literature review), and meta-analysis.

The Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga as the publisher of Folia Medica Indonesiana takes its duties of guardianship at all publishing stages seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensure that either advertisement, re-printing, or additional commercial revenue has no impact and/or influence on the editorial decision. Editorial Boards assist in communication with other party and/or publishers when necessary.

This statement is adopted under Committe on Publication Ethics (COPE). Folia Medica Indonesiana  applies open citation as indicated in 140c.

Duties of Authors

1. Submission
Authors must submit all elements of their manuscripts online at journal website. Hard-copy submissions will NOT be considered or returned. A completed CTA & Authors' Declaration form, which can be downloaded from this website, and signed by all authors must accompany all submissions. Authors are also encouraged to apply acceptable checklists in these links (i.e., CASP, COREQ, CHEERS, CHEERIES, CROSS, ENTREQ, GRADE-CERQual, GRIPP2, PRISMA (2020), PRISMA-ScR, SRQR, STROBE, TIDieR-PHP, TRIPOD).

2. Human and Animal Subjects
The research being reported should have been conducted ethically and responsibly and should comply with all relevant legislation. For manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human participants, authors must provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study, and the study conforms to recognized standards (for example Declaration of Helsinki). Research involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as research on humans. Authors should implement the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). Authors must describe the details journals regarding study design and statistical analysis, experimental procedures, experimental animals, housing, and husbandry. Authors must inform that ethical and legal approval was obtained before the start of the study, and state the name of the body approving. Authors should also state whether experiments were performed by relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations.

3. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable time.

4. Reporting Manuscript’s Standards
Authors must present an accurate account of the original article (research, review, or case report) performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Authors should present their results, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and will be unacceptable.

5. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written manuscripts that adhere to publication requirements that the submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

6. Duplicate and Redundant Publications
Authors must avoid duplicate publication, which is reproducing verbatim content from their other publications. Authors should not submit and are also expected will not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced

7. Acknowledgment of Sources
All sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should be properly identified. Authors must present a proper acknowledgment of the work of others.

8. Authorship of the Manuscript
The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authors ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section.

9. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed. Authors have to disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be supposed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscripts.

10. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
It is the author's responsibility to contact the journal's editors or publishers as soon as they uncover substantial errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, and to work with them to either rectify the manuscript in the form of erratum or retract the paper. If a third party informs the editor or publisher that a published work has a serious error or inaccuracy, the authors must promptly fix or retract the publication, or give evidence to the journal editors that the paper is correct.

11. Peer Review
Authors must take a part in the peer review process and cooperate completely with editors by providing raw data, clarificating, and and verification of ethics approval, patient consents, and copyright permissions as soon as possible. When a first decision of "revision necessary" is made, authors should reply to the reviewers' remarks in a methodological, point-by-point, and timely manner. amending and resubmitting their manuscript to the journal within the provided deadline.

 

Duties of Editor

1. Publication Decisions
Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish. Editors should apply consistent standards in their processes so that have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record. Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays. 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 that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.

2. Review of Manuscripts
The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also 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.

3. Fair Play
Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent of commercial considerations and ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

4. Confidentiality
Editors should ensure confidential handling of manuscripts, with no details being disclosed to anyone except the peer reviewers without the author's permission. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence, they should remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties, or unless there are exceptional circumstances (eg, when they might help substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during peer review).

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his research without the written consent of the author. And also, editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers
Manuscripts submitted for publication in Folia Medica Indonesiana journals are subjected to double-blind peer-review. Double-blind reviewing maintains the identity of the authors as well as the reviewers, not disclosing their names to each other. The anonymity of authors and reviewers ensures an objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2. Confidentiality
Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3. Standards of Objectivity
Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The manuscript must provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study, and the study conforms to recognized standards. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments as well as reagents should be documented in detail. Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions appropriately and comprehensively, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript. Furthermore, the manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct, and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript (see duties of Authors).

4. 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 in 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 papers.

5. Promptness
The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time frame. If they cannot return a review within the proposed time, they should inform the journal promptly and explain they require an extension. If a reviewer feels him/her can't complete the review of the manuscript within the stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.

6. Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had 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.