FOCUS AND SCOPE

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) accepts submissions of original article, literature review, case reports, and Systematic Review and Meta Analysis in English with the scope of:

- Mental Health.

- Neuroscience.

- Mental Disorders.

- Psychology.

- Psychological well-being.

- Community Psychiatry.

- CLP (Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry).

- Geriatric.

- Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

SECTION POLICIES

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer-Reviewed

REVIEW ARTICLE/ LITERATURE REVIEW

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer-Reviewed

CASE REPORT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer-Reviewed

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META ANALYSIS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer-Reviewed

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (Surabaya Psychiatry Journal) uses a double-blind review, which means that both reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, along with the review process. The review process of a manuscript takes an average 6-10 weeks, depending on the duration of the editor, the reviewer, and the authors in reviewing and revising the manuscript. The reviewers decision will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

All of the reviewing process is done by way of a double-blind review and is managed by the editor in OJS.

Articles are considered for publication with the condition that they have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

When two independent Peer Reviewers have come to opposing decisions on a manuscript, a third independent Peer Reviewer will be asked to Review the manuscript with an allocation time of two months. His/her decision is final for determining whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

The practice of peer review ensures that only good manuscripts are published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is performed by all reputable scientific journals.

Peer review process: The manuscript that has passed the initial review stage will be sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The reviewers will be provided with an assessment form and are encouraged to provide comments directly on the text of the manuscript.

Review decision: The reviewer's decision will be considered by the Editors to determine the subsequent process of the manuscript. The following recommendations will be provided by the reviewers:

- Accept submission: means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication without any revisions or changes

- Revision required: means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication after being revised in response to the reviewers' comments

- Resubmit for review: means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis or research variable, type of research, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs so need to be revised and resubmit

- Decline submission: means that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication because it is not within the scope of the required research or the review provided is related to a very basic problem

Revision stage: After the manuscript is received with a revision note or re-submission, the manuscript will be sent back to the author with the review form from the reviewers and the revision form. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the manuscript revision form provided. If the revised manuscript does not match the comments given by the reviewer, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision.

Final decision: The final decision on the acceptability, or otherwise, of manuscripts will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting. Scanning for instances of plagiarism present in manuscripts will be conducted by means of Turnitin software. The manuscript can still be rejected if the author is not serious about making the necessary revisions.

Proofreading process: After the manuscript is approved and accepted by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting, the manuscript will undergo a proofreading process using native speaker services to maintain the quality of the language.

Final stage: The final layout of the manuscript will be sent back to the author to ensure that the content matches the author's writing. The author can revise any typos found in the final manuscript. After confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for publication.

PUBLICATION FREQUENCY

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (Surabaya Psychiatry Journal) is published twice a year (May and November).

OPEN ACCESS POLICY

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) open access, 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.

ARCHIVING

This journal utilizes the CLOCKSS 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.

ARTICLE-PROCESSING CHARGES

a. Article Submission Fee: 0.00 (IDR)

No charge for manuscript submission

b. Article Processing Charge: 0.00 (IDR)

No article processing charges or any other charges are applied by Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya.

PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

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

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) is a journal that 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, mental health and all related diseases as well as related topics that have neither been published elsewhere in any language nor are under review for publication anywhere. The following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the authors, the editors, and the reviewers. 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.
9. Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.

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

Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya (JPS) applies a double-blind peer-review process. The peer-review is done by at least two independent reviewers who have no conflict of interest.

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.
6. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving the manuscripts. Peer review is a heart of a scientific endeavor.