Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) accepts submissions of original research, literature review, case reports in English with the scope of PMental Health, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Literature Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SPECIAL EDITION : LETTER TO EDITOR

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of articles published on Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya. All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. 


Initial manuscript evaluation The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 1 expert for review. 

Type of Peer Review Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya employs double blind reviewing, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process. 

How the reviewer is selected Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated. 

Reviewer reports Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: - Is original - Is methodologically sound - Follows appropriate ethical guidelines - Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions - Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript. 

How long does the review process take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the reviewer’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, or when the one reviewer’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one reviewer’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually includes verbatim comments by the reviewers. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers who may then request another revision of a manuscript. 

Revision Articles sent for revision to the authors does not guarantee that the paper will be accepted. Authors are given approxiately 2 weeks to return their revised manuscript. Note that if the revision is not received within 3 months, the Editorial Office will decide to reject.


Final report A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. 

Editor’s Decision is final Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Preparation for the manuscript When the galley proof is ready, the Editorial Office will send the proof to authors to check for its completeness. Confirmation or comments from the authors must be given within 48 hours of receipt of the proof, in order to avoid delays in publication of the manuscript. Significant alterations to the text will not be entertained at this stage, and the authors are responsible for all statements made in their work, including changes made by the Editorial team and authorised by the corresponding author.

Manuscripts without the approval of the galley proof by the authors and a completed Copyright Form will not be published. Once the author gives approval for publication, the Editorial Office will not be held responsible for any mistakes thereafter. No complimentary hard copy of the journal to authors is given. However, the soft copy of the article can be obtained from the journal’s webpage.

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) is is a national journal managed by Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Airlangga and published twice a year (May and November) with a complete manuscript in English. This journal publishes various scientific papers on the world of health, especially in the fields of Mental Health, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry.

 

Open Access Policy

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) provides immediate, free-of-charge access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) menyediakan akses langsung dan gratis ke kontennya dengan prinsip bahwa membuat penelitian tersedia secara bebas untuk publik mendukung pertukaran pengetahuan global yang lebih besar.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system 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. More...

Jurnal ini menggunakan sistem LOCKSS untuk membuat sistem pengarsipan terdistribusi di antara perpustakaan yang berpartisipasi dan memungkinkan perpustakaan tersebut untuk membuat arsip permanen jurnal untuk tujuan pelestarian dan restorasi.

 

 

Article Processing Charges

Submission to Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) is free of charge.

 

Plagiarism Statement

The editors of Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya will screen all submitted manuscripts for plagiarism using Turnitin plagiarism checker. We accept articles with plagiarism less than 20%.

 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya is a journal aims to be a leading peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on psychiatry, psychology, and mental health with particular emphasis placed on the related diseases as well as related topics that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 

 

Duties of Authors

1.   Reporting  Standards: Authors  should  present  an accurate  account  of  the  original  research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

2.   Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. 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.

3.   Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting  the  same  manuscript  to  more  than one journal  concurrently  constitutes  unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced

4.   Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

5.   Authorship  of  the  Paper: The  authorship  of research  publications  should  accurately  reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution 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 to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.

6.   Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation  of  their manuscript.  All  sources  of  financial support for the project should be disclosed.

7.   Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

8.   Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

1.   Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. 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. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

2.   Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. 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. Editor 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: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. 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: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.

5.   Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

  

Duties of Reviewers

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

2.   Acknowledgement  of  Sources: Reviewers  must  ensure  that  authors  have  acknowledged  all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

3.   Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work

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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

5.   Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.