Publication Ethics

Folia Medica Indonesiana follows ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC). Folia Medica Indonesiana aims to uphold ethical standards and safeguard participants’ rights, privacy, and welfare; this also applies to the study using animal models. Universitas Airlangga, as the publisher, upholds these standards and ensures editorial decisions are unbiased. A submitted manuscript undergoes rigorous double-blind peer-review, which means both author and peer-reviewer are blinded to each other. Any form of plagiarism is not accepted, and Folia Medica Indonesiana checks all submitted papers for similarity using https://turnitin.com with an acceptance score less than 20%.

 

For Editor

  • Editor is responsible for the content published and must follow strict standards and journal policies. Editor has the authority to accept, reject, or request changes to manuscripts, prioritizing timely review and publication.
  • Editor evaluates manuscript originality and ethical considerations. They ensure a fair peer review process, selecting unbiased reviewers without conflict of interests. Peer review procedures are communicated clearly to authors.
  • Editor makes unbiased decisions based on the content, avoiding biases related to personal attributes. Editor ensures fairness and equity throughout the publication process.
  • Editor maintains the confidentiality of manuscripts, sharing information only with authorized reviewers. Confidential discussions are kept private, except in exceptional cases.
  • Editor must ensure that the aims and scope are in line with Folia Medica Indonesiana and ensure proper citations.
  • Editor upholds content integrity by addressing misconduct. Editor obtains consent before using unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts. Editor avoids decisions involving conflict of interests.
  • The final decision and publication are decided by the Editorial Board; the author may appeal this decision, although the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision on the manuscript.

 

For Reviewer

  • Manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer-review process, which means both author and peer-reviewer are blinded to each other, ensuring the anonymity of author and peer-reviewer for an unbiased assessment.
  • Peer-reviewer helps the editor make objective decisions and helps the author improve the manuscript's content quality.
  • Manuscript and related information should be kept confidential and not shared without authorization.
  • Peer-reviewer must provide clear opinions supported by evidence and give a problem solution accordingly. Peer-reviewer helps the editor check the originality of the manuscript and ensure that it adheres to ethical and scientific methods, presents comprehensive and interpretable results, and also reviews for correct and standard technical terms.
  • Peer-reviewer must inform the editors if finding out about significant similarities with other submitted and/ or published papers.
  • Peer-reviewer must maintain confidentiality and avoid any conflict of interests.
  • Peer-reviewer should provide timely feedback and notify about any delays to prevent prolonged processes that might cause any drawbacks.

 

For Author

  • Author must submit the manuscript via online submission and make sure that the manuscript follows the guidelines for authors.
  • Author must have completed and submitted all requirements on the checklist.
  • Author must ensure that no academic disintegrity and/ or ethical misconduct occurred during the study and follow checklist according to your study type.
  • Author must obtain informed consent for publication that explains the study's purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, confidentiality, and data usage.
  • Author of the original research report must submit an ethical clearance from the authority where the study is conducted and state the date and number of the ethical clearance. Any studies in humans must comply with Declaration of Helsinki and protect the minority groups according  the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
  • Author must protect the anonymity of participants and remove identifying information from research data.
  • Author must ensure that vulnerable populations (e.g., children, pregnant women, prisoners) require a risk-benefit analysis, informed consent from authorized representatives, and protection of privacy. It is advisable to always follow the points stated by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
  • Author must ensure that the study using animal models adheres to the Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (3Rs) principles for animal subjects and follows the ARRIVE checklist.
  • Author should provide raw data upon request for editorial review and/ or post-publication.
  • Author must present truthful and objective findings with clear method descriptions for replication and avoidance of fraudulent statements.
  • Author(s) must ensure that the submitted manuscript contains no falsification, fabrication, fallacy and plagiarism.
  • Submitted manuscript must not contain self-plagiarism and/ or any other types of plagiarism; difference from previous published paper(s) from any of the author(s) with same/ similar subject, if any, must be reasoned and detailed [with more than 50% development from the previous paper(s) and significant novelty that are in line with the current manuscript's aim(s)].
  • Author must give proper acknowledgment of data sources and influential publications.
  • Author should acknowledge substantial contributors as co-authors and others in the acknowledgment section with the co-authors' consent.
  • Author should disclose funding sources and conflict of interests.
  • Author should be responsible for promptly notifying editors of significant errors and collaborating to rectify them.
  • Author must actively engage in the peer-review process and address reviewers' comments thoroughly. Adherence to these guidelines ensures ethical publication practices and upholds research integrity.
  • Author must complete and upload all documents required that can be downloaded here.

 

Comments and Complaints

If readers have any concerns or complaints regarding published articles, we encourage them to first reach out to the corresponding author in an attempt to resolve the issue directly, prior to contacting the Editorial Office.

Should it be impractical to contact the authors directly, if the authors are unresponsive, or if the issues persist unresolved, readers are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office. Upon receipt of such communications, the Editorial Office will engage with the complainant, the author(s), as well as the Editor-in-Chief or members of the Editorial Board to thoroughly investigate, discuss, and resolve any concerns or grievances raised.

Any complaints, comments, or requests for updates pertaining to the scholarly integrity, ethical considerations, or legal aspects of the published article or its peer review process will be carefully examined as necessary. The Editorial Office, in collaboration with the Editorial Board and under the final approval of the Editor-in-Chief, will conduct comprehensive investigations in line with publication ethics guidelines established by COPE. Additional consultations with relevant parties, such as university officials or specialists, may be sought as appropriate, especially in cases involving legal implications.

It is important to note that personal opinions or critiques will not be considered. All complaints, including those submitted anonymously, will be thoroughly assessed. Should complainants wish to discuss their concerns confidentially, they are encouraged to request such discussions with the Editorial Office. Confidentiality will be maintained to the best of our abilities in accordance with internal procedures.

Decisions regarding corrections, comments and replies, expressions of concerns, or retractions resulting from investigations will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor-in-Chief, or Editorial Board members, and communicated to the authors accordingly. 

In cases where complaints are found to be unsubstantiated, further communication will be entertained only upon presentation of additional evidence supporting the concerns raised.

During the course of an inquiry, complainants may not receive updates on the progress of the investigation until a final decision is reached. However, they will be promptly informed of any new developments. Please note that members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Office are not obligated to provide further information. Communication may be terminated if discussions deviate from respectful and constructive dialogue. Readers are advised that conducting inquiries is a meticulous process that demands careful consideration and time.

 

Potential Conflicts of Interests

We maintain genuine transparency, requiring all participants in the peer-review process to thoroughly assess and disclose any conflicts of interest during their involvement in reviewing, decision-making, and publishing an article. All relationships that could influence the impartial evaluation, peer review, and decision-making process must be disclosed.

If a Reviewer or Editor perceives a conflict of interest, they should recuse themselves from the peer review or decision-making process to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process, even if they believe it will not affect the outcome.