Editorial Policies

 

 

Focus and Scope

JPH RECODE is a scientific journal which publishes research articles and community development reports on public health issues with national and international relevance. JPH RECODE welcomes submissions from around the world as well as from Indonesia. The journal is particularly interested in public health issues in the tropics. The scope of JPH RECODE includes:

  1. Epidemiology 
  2. Health Promotion and Behavior Science
  3. Public Health Nutrition 
  4. Sexual and Reproductive Health
  5. Environmental Health
  6. Occupational Health and Safety
  7. Health Administration and Policy
  8. Biostatistics and Population Health
  9. Health Care and Hospital Management

Author may also submit articles on any other emerging issues relating to public health with editor's consideration.

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 
 
 

 

Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts must be free from plagiarism content as checked via Turnitin software. Peer reviewers will evaluate the substantial and technical aspects of each manuscript. JPH RECODE adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review Process policy.  Each submitted article that passes the first editorial assessment will be peered reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers via Open Journal System (OJS).  Peer reviewers will be appointed by the editor from national and international experts in the fields of science relevant to the article who are experienced in journal management and publication system.   The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript will be taken by the editorial board based on the reviewers' comments submitted during the editorial board meeting. The following are the most common decisions:

  • accept without any changes (acceptance), where JPH RECODE will publish the manuscript in its original form.
  • accept with minor revisions (acceptance), where JPH RECODE will publish the manuscript after the author make minor corrections based on reviewers and/or editors comment.
  • accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance), where JPH RECODE will publish the manuscript after the author makes major changes suggested by the reviewer and/or editor.
  • revise and resubmit (conditional rejection), where JPH RECODE is willing to reconsider the manuscript for review after the authors have revised the manuscript to match the scope and/or the quality standard of JPH RECODE.
  • reject the paper (outright rejection), where the journal will not publish the manuscript or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

The reviewer's decision will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

  • Revision Stage. Once the manuscript is received with notes of minor or major revisions, the manuscript will be returned to the author with a review summary. Authors are given 3-6 weeks to revise.
  • Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Editor to ensure that the author has made revisions in response to the reviewers' concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript can still be rejected if the author is not serious about carrying out the necessary revisions.
  • Once the manuscript is deemed acceptable by the Editor, the manuscript will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.
  • Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author's writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographic error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication. The author(s) will receive the final version of the manuscript as a PDF file. PROOF of all manuscripts will be provided to the corresponding author. The PROOF should be read carefully, checked against the typed manuscript, and the corrections may be returned within 7 days.
  • Rejection confirmation. If manuscript is rejected, the author will be notified by Chief Editor with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal to Chief Editor if he or she believes an unfair judgement has been made which encloses the author's reasons. Chief Editor will review and discuss the reasons with the member of editorial boards responsible for the manuscript, and later decide whether to accept or deny the appeal.
  • Copyright of manuscripts. Authors submitting manuscripts should understand and agree that copyright of manuscripts of the article shall be assigned/transferred to JPH RECODE. The statement to release the copyright to JPH RECODE is stated in author's declaration Form. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA) where Authors and Readers can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, but they must give appropriate credit (cite to the article or content), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

All review processes are double blind and managed by the editor in the Open Journal System (OJS). 

peer review process

STEP 1

  1. The author registers on JPH RECODE’s website and logs in using their account.
  2. The author submits the manuscript along with the required supporting files.
  3. Submitted article will undergo plagiarism check, and assessment of completeness of the supporting files and adherence to double blind format.
  4. The author will be contacted if there is any indication of plagiarism, the supporting files are incomplete, or the manuscript contains information not deemed appropriate for double blind review.
  5. The author will be invited to submit a revised version.

STEP 2

  1. The editor will check whether the manuscript is within the scope of JPH RECODE and whether the quality of the manuscript is good and suitable for review process.
  2. Manuscript quality of writing is checked against JPH RECODE manuscript template guidelines for authors.

STEP 3

Good quality manuscript will be sent to two reviewers.

STEP 4

  1. Results and recommendation from the review process will be assessed by the editor and the editor will decide whether the manuscript is accepted, requires revisions, or rejected.
  2. Manuscript needing revision will be returned to the author for revision.
  3. The revised manuscript will be sent to the reviewers who will check whether all required revision and questions have been addressed.
  4. The editor will decide whether the revised manuscript is suitable for publication, needs further revision or is completely rejected, taking into account reviewer's recommendation.

STEP 5

  1. Accepted manuscript will undergo an editing process by the copyeditor.
  2. Manuscripts are proofread by professional proofreaders and the results are returned to the author for revision.
  3. The revised proof will go through a lay-outing process based on JPH RECODE publication standards.

STEP 6

The final proof will be sent to the author for final check before publication.

STEP 7

Article is assigned to an issue and published.

 

Publication Frequency

JPH RECODE publishes online twice a year in October and March.

 

 

 

Open Access Policy

JPH RECODE is a peer reviewed journal with open access. The article processing or delivery of the manuscript are managed through the OJS Open Access publishing model.

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.  

 

 

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the CLOCKSS systems to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. This journal also utilizes the PKP Preservation Network system to preserve article for long term access. PKP PN

 

 

 

Article Processing Charges

JPH RECODE does not apply any Article Processing Charges.

Article Submission charges Free

Article Processing charges Free

Article Publishing charges Free.

 

 

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the act of when one author uses another work/author (copying someone's prior ideas, processes, results, or words) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. The JPH RECODE is strictly against any unethical act of copying or plagiarism in any form. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. JPH RECODE considers plagiarism as a serious offense and will blacklist authors who knowingly cite or use material from other published works without proper acknowledgment. Authors are recommended to use plagiarism checking program to check the similarity with prior publication before undergoing the review processes or before publication. Every manuscript submitted to this journal will be screened for plagiarism using Turnitin Program before sent to review or published by JPH RECODE's Editor.

The following types of plagiarism are considered by JPH RECODE:
1. Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one's own.
2. Partial Plagiarism: If content is a mixture from multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.
3. Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal.

If plagiarism is detected by the editorial board member, reviewer, editor etc., in any stage of article process- before or after acceptance, during editing or at a page proof stage, we will alert to the author(s) and will ask them to rewrite the content or to cite the references from where the content has been taken.

If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal will investigate. If plagiarism is found, the competent authority of the JPH RECODE will contact the author's institute and funding agencies. The paper containing the plagiarism will be marked on each page of the PDF. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted.

 

 

Publication Ethics

JPH RECODE thrives to meet the standard quality of publication ethics for editors, authors, and reviewers.  JPH RECODE follows the ethics guideline issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for requirement for authorship, contributorship and processes for managing potential disputes.  

Publication decisions in JPH RECODE is made by editors based on scientific merit of the manuscripts after peer-review process.  JPH RECODE ensures that publication decisions are not influenced or impacted by any commercial revenue, advertising, or reprints.  The followings are duties of editors, reviewers and authors to ensure ethical publication at JPH RECODE.

For Editors

  1. The editor of JPH RECODE is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
  2. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be enforced regarding libel copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  3. 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.
  4. Editors should act responsibly and ethically in each stage of publication process
  5. Editors and all staffs should keep each submitted manuscript confidential. The editors and any editorial board members 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.
  6. Editors should help authors to follow the Guidelines for Authors.
  7. Editors should respect reasonable and practical requests from authors to exclude an individual as a reviewer of the submitted manuscript.
  8. Editors need to ensure blinded review process and should ensure that no information of the authors is sent to the reviewer
  9. Editors’ decision should be clearly informed to authors along with reviewers’ comments.
  10. Editors are required to objectively assess each manuscript for publication, based on its quality and not on the gender, seniority, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or institutional affiliation of the authors
  11. Editors can discuss with reviewers or other editors to make the final decision on the manuscript.
  12. Editors must report potential conflicts of interest that occur when reviewing articles.
  13. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without written consent from the authors.
  14. For other issues that have not been regulated, we follow the guidelines suggested by COPE.
  15. Suspected misconduct and disputes shall be solved using COPE guideline.

For Reviewers

  1. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers need to keep the manuscript confidential.
  2. 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.
  3. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has 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.
  5. Reviewers need to make assessment on ethical conduct and possible research and publication misconduct in each manuscript.
  6. A reviewer should 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.
  7. A reviewer should notify the editor if a reviewer’s assistant needs to access the manuscript or a reviewer needs to transfer the manuscript to someone else. The editor will decide on approval of such access and transfer.
  8. In reviewing the manuscript, reviewers need to ensure timely process and should notify editor if they need more time.
  9. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  10. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage
  11. Reviewers should declare and not accept to review manuscripts with potential conflicts of interest between them and any of the authors.
  12. For other issues that have not been regulated, we follow the guidelines suggested by COPE.

For Authors

  1. Authors need to affirm that the submitted material has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal or any other publisher.
  2. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
  3. In writing the manuscript, authors must follow the Guideline for Authors.
  4. 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
  5. Authors of research articles should follow relevant research reporting guideline available on the Equator Network website.
  6. Authors must ensure the originality of the content of manuscript and they have properly cited references in accordance with the required referencing style. Authors must also ensure that the use of pre-published images, figures, tables and any other components have received proper permit from the original authors and proper citation have been used.
  7. 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.
  8. Proper acknowledgment of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) must always be given. Proper declaration can be seen here.
  9. Author(s) should not engage in plagiarism nor self-plagiarism which is a serious violation of publication ethics. JPH RECODE screens for plagiarism using Turnitin to estimate similarity of the manuscript with other publication. 
  10. The authors should not reveal any personal information that may reveal the identity of the research subjects in any forms of description or photograph in the manuscript. If the photographs of the respondents were crucial and scientifically indispensable, the authors must ensure to have received a written consent and the consenting process is clearly stated in the manuscript.
  11. Authorship is limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, data collection, implementation, analysis or interpretation of the reported study. All authors and co-authors should have read, reviewed and approved the version of the manuscript submitted to the JPH RECODE. The corresponding authors should ensure that all persons who have made significant contributions to the study and the manuscripts should be listed as co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included. Others who have participated or contributed substantially in any aspects of the study but do not fulfill authorship criteria should be acknowledged as contributors.
  12. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the publication of the manuscript has had all co-authors’ approval. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the manuscripts emanating from a particular institution are submitted with the necessary approval of the institution. In case of multiple authorship, a copy right release form must be signed by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors.
  13. Authors should clearly identify in the Title Page any financial support received for the implementation of the research and/or manuscript preparation and state the role of the funder/sponsor in any part of the work.
  14. 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 their manuscript. All sources of financial support for received for the implementation of the research and/or manuscript preparation and the role of the funder/sponsor in any part of the work should be disclosed.
  15. Authors contributions and conflict of interest should be declared in the Title Page upon submission. Authors contribution and conflict of interest should include all named authors in the manuscript.
  16. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, authors should immediately notify the Editors to retract or correct the manuscript.
  17. JPH RECODE supports data sharing for reproducibility.
  18. Authors may be 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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  19. All authors must read the submission final checklist before submission.

Ethical Clearance

JPH RECODE requires all manuscripts from studies involving human subjects to respect research ethics principles as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors should state clearly in the manuscript that:

  1. The study was conducted with proper consenting process from each participant, participants consent process should be described and anonymity of the subjects should be maintained.
  2. That a valid ethical committee has approved the study protocol.
  3. For studies involving children or vulnerable populations, parent or guardian consent must be obtained.
  4. In cases where participant´s or, in cases of vulnerable population, parents/guardian´s consent was not obtained, the author must provide explanation and the editor would decide upon assessment if the explanation deemed acceptable.

JPH RECODE also requires all manuscript from studies involving live animals to include:

  1. Full description of any surgical procedure and anaesthetic used.
  2. Evidence of possible measures taken to avoid animal sufferings at each stage of the study.
  3. Statement of approval from a valid ethical committee.

 

AI Transparency and Responsible Use

Authors must explicitly disclose any AI-assisted tools used during manuscript preparation, including but not limited to:

  • Language enhancement (e.g., Grammarly, DeepL, QuillBot).
  • Text summarization or paraphrasing (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot).
  • Data processing and analysis (e.g., AI-driven statistical software).
  • Reference management (e.g., AI-assisted citation tools).

AI must not be used to generate original scientific ideas, conclusions, or fabricate data. Authors bear full responsibility for validating AI-assisted content to ensure accuracy, originality, and compliance with ethical publishing standards.

AI Declaration Requirement

Starting from Volume 9 Number 1 October 2025, authors are required to include one of the following statements in their manuscripts.

If AI Tools Were Used:

"The author(s) acknowledge the use of [NAME OF AI TOOL/SERVICE, e.g., ChatGPT/Gemini/Copilot/Grammarly] for [SPECIFIC PURPOSE, e.g., language refinement, summarization, or data analysis] in preparing this manuscript. All AI-generated content was rigorously reviewed, edited, and validated to ensure accuracy and originality. Full responsibility for the manuscript’s final content rests with the author(s).

If No AI Tools Were Used:

"The author(s) affirm that no artificial intelligence (AI) tools, services, or technologies were employed in the creation, editing, or refinement of this manuscript. All content presented is the result of the independent intellectual efforts of the ausuring originality and integrity."thor(s), en

Post Publication Critique - Handling Procedures

  • JPH RECODE, together with its editors, makes great efforts to maintain and uphold academic integrity by ensuring that all published materials comply with internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  • When an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor and work with the editor to correct or retract the article.
  • If the editor learns from a third party that a published work has received criticism and contains significant errors, the editor will discuss it in the editorial board meeting.  If it is found that the criticism or error is fundamental, the editor will return it to the author for correction or article retraction. We follow the guidelines suggested by COPE.
  • In the case of a seriously flawed article, the journal will take a quick reaction, which may result in the retraction of the article. Procedures for retracting articles will follow the guidelines suggested by COPE.
  • All complaints regarding publication will be taken seriously by the editor, regardless of who submits the complaint.
  • The journal will consider issuing corrections, erratums, clarifications, and apologies if it is proven that there are serious publication errors.