Jurnal Respirasi (JR) follows guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in facing all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct.
JR is a peer-reviewed national journal published by the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. The following statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, and the reviewer.
Duties of Authors
Authors must submit all elements of their manuscripts online at the journal website. Hard-copy submissions will NOT be considered or returned. A completed Authorship Form and Cover Page, signed by all authors, must accompany all submissions. Authors are also encouraged to apply acceptable checklists in this journal (i.e., CASP, COREQ, CHEERS, CROSS, ENTREQ, GRADE-CERQual, GRIPP2, PRISMA (2020), PRISMA-ScR, SRQR, STROBE, TIDieR-PHP, TRIPOD).
Human or 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.
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.
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.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written manuscripts that adhere to publication requirements and 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.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines and translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgment of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, and general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Duties of Editors
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.
Review for 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.
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.
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 (e.g., when they might help substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during peer review).
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
Duties of Reviewers
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.
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.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts 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.