JUXTA: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Kedokteran Universitas Airlangga adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in addressing all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle instances of research and publication misconduct.
This statement clarifies the ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication of an article in this journal, including the author, editor, and reviewers.
Authors are required to submit their entire manuscripts online via the journal's website. Paper submissions will NOT be evaluated or returned. All submissions must include an Authorship Form and Cover Page signed by all authors.
- Human or animal subjects
The manuscripts should have been conducted ethically and responsibly and in accordance with all applicable laws. For manuscripts reporting medical studies involving human participants, authors are required to include a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study and confirming that the study adheres to recognized standards (such as the Declaration of Helsinki). Animal research should be conducted with the same level of rigor as human research. Authors should implement the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) principles. JUXTA requires authors to characterize study design and statistical analysis, experimental procedures, animals used in experiments, housing, and husbandry. Authors must disclose that ethical and legal approval was obtained prior to the initiation of the study and identify the approving body. Additionally, authors should indicate whether experiments were conducted in accordance with applicable institutional and national guidelines and regulations.
- Data access and retention
For editorial evaluation, authors may be asked to provide the raw data associated with a paper. They should be able to provide this information within a reasonable timeframe.
- Reporting standards for manuscripts
Authors are required to provide an accurate description of the original article and an objective discussion of its significance. Authors should present their findings without fabrication, falsification, or improper manipulation of data. Authors should endeavor to provide clear and unambiguous descriptions of their methods to ensure their findings can be replicated by others. False or intentionally inaccurate statements comprise unethical conduct and will not be tolerated.
- Originality and plagiarism
Authors are responsible for submitting original, non-plagiarized work that has not been previously published. Manuscripts must adhere to publication requirements and be original. The manuscript should not be submitted simultaneously to multiple publications unless co-publication has been approved by the editors. Relevant prior work and publications, both by other researchers and by the authors, should be acknowledged and cited appropriately. Whenever feasible, the primary literature should be cited. Original language derived directly from the works of other scholars should be enclosed in quotation marks and accompanied by the appropriate citations.
- Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication
Not more than one journal or primary publication should publish articles describing essentially the same research. Therefore, authors should not submit manuscripts that have been previously published in another journal. Submitting a manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
Certain types of articles (such as clinical guidelines and translations) may be published in multiple journals if certain conditions are fulfilled. The authors and editors of the respective journals must approve the secondary publication, which must contain the same data and interpretation as the original document. The primary source must be referenced within the secondary publication.
- Acknowledgment of sources
Authors should ensure that they have appropriately acknowledged the work of others and cited any publications that were instrumental in determining the nature of the work being reported. Information obtained in confidence (through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or disclosed without the source's express, written consent. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, without the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work for which these services were performed.
- Authorship of the manuscript
Only those who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors, as they must be able to assume public responsibility for the content: (i) made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (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. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical assistance, writing and editing assistance, and general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section after obtaining their written permission to do so. The corresponding author should confirm that all appropriate co-authors (according to the previous definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its submission for publication.
- Disclosure and conflicts of interest
At the earliest opportunity (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript), authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be construed as having influenced the results or their interpretation. 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 including personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs regarding the subject matter or materials. All sources of financial support for the work must be disclosed, including grant or other identifiers if applicable.
- Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal's editors or publisher and work with them to either issue an erratum or retract the paper. If the editors or publisher discovers from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, it is the authors' responsibility to promptly correct or retract the paper, or to provide proof that the paper is accurate.
- Peer review
Authors are required to participate in the peer review process and to completely cooperate by promptly responding 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 required," authors should respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point-by-point, and promptly, revising and resubmitting their manuscript to the journal by the provided deadline.
- Publication decisions
Editors are accountable and should accept responsibility for their publications. Editors should apply consistent standards to their processes in order to ensure the quality of the content they publish and preserve the integrity of the published record. On the basis of the editorial board's review report, the editor may approve, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript. The objective of editors should be to ensure timely peer review and publication, while avoiding superfluous delays. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and be constrained by the then-applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, which encourage maximum transparency and thorough, truthful reporting.
- Review for manuscripts
The editor must ensure that each manuscript is evaluated for originality at the outset. Editors should critically evaluate the ethical conduct of human and animal investigations. The editor must coordinate and utilize peer review with fairness and discretion. In the guidelines for authors, editors should describe their peer review procedures and designate which sections of the journal are peer-reviewed. For papers that are being considered for publication, editors should select peer reviewers with sufficient expertise and avoid those with conflicts of interest.
- Fair play
Editors should make fair and impartial decisions independent of commercial concerns and guarantee a fair and suitable peer-review process. The editor must ensure that each submitted manuscript is evaluated based on its intellectual merit, regardless of the authors' gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. Since editors are in a position of power when making publication decisions, it is crucial that the editorial process is as fair and impartial as feasible.
Editors should guarantee the confidentiality of manuscripts, revealing no details to anyone other than the peer reviewers without the author's consent. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have occurred in confidence, they should remain confidential unless explicit consent has been given by all parties or unless exceptional circumstances exist (e.g., if they could be used to support claims of intellectual property theft during peer review).
- Disclosure and conflict of interest
Without the authors' unambiguous written consent, editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research. The editors will maintain the confidentiality of any confidential information or ideas obtained in the course of handling the manuscript, and will not use such information or ideas for their own benefit. They will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript instead.
The information submitted by authors regarding their manuscripts should be kept confidential and regarded as privileged information. They cannot be shown to or discussed with others without the editor's permission.
- Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review aids the editor in making editorial decisions, and editorial communications with the author may help the author improve the paper.
- Standards of objectivity
Evaluations must be conducted objectively. Personal assaults on the author are improper. Referees should articulate their opinions with supporting evidence.
If a referee feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a prompt review is impossible, he or she should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation before other reviewers can be contacted.
- Acknowledgment of sources
The reviewers should identify pertinent previously published works that were not cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument reported in prior publications must be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer must also inform the editors of any substantial overlaps or similarities between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they are aware.
- Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal gain and must be kept private. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the papers.