Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Berkala Ilmu Kesehatan Kulit dan Kelamin (BIKKK)/Periodical of Dermatology and Venereology is a scientific publication of quarterly chess. BIKKK accepts manuscripts in the form of original manuscripts, literature reviews, case reports, and editorials in English in accordance with the scope of Dermatology and Venereology.

 

Section Policies

Research / Retro

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
 

Peer Review Process

All articles received by BIKKK editors will be reviewed by reviewers in accordance with the scope of Skin Health and Gender Studies with a double-blind policy. The final decision will be taken by the chief editor based on comments from reviewers in the editorial board forum.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal Berkala Ilmu Kesehatan Kulit dan Kelamin every year will publish 3 editions / quarterly chess, which is edition 1 in April, edition 2 in August and the third edition in December

 

Open Access Policy

Berkala Ilmu Kesehatan Kulit dan Kelamin (BIKKK)/Periodical of Dermatology and Venereology provides immediate, free-of-charge access to its content on the principle that rendering research available to the public promotes greater global knowledge exchange.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Creations are distributed below Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-NonKomersial 4.0 Internasional.

 

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...

 

Article Processing Charges

Author must pay IDR 2.500.000 and sign the letter of agreement, if the paper
is rejected after the review process, the money will be returned in the amount
of IDR 1.500.000

 

Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism screening will be carried out by the BIKKK Journal Editorial Board using a turnitin Plagiarism Checker.

 

Publication Etichs

Publication Ethics

Berkala Ilmu Kesehatan Kulit dan Kelamin (BIKKK)/Periodical of Dermatology and Venereology, peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in publishing an article in this journal, including the author, editor-in-chief, Editorial Board, peer reviewer and publisher (Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga). This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Author responsibility

 

 

1.

Reporting Standards:

 

The author who writes the research report must present an accurate report of the work done and discuss the purpose of the research significance. The underlying data must be explained accurately in the research report text. The research report must contain enough detail and references to enable others to emulate the work. Reports containing fraud or intentions regarding inaccurate data are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

2.

Data Access and Retention:

 

If needed, the author is asked to provide raw data related to editorial needs. The author must be prepared to provide the data within a predetermined time period.

3.

Originality and Plagiarism:

 

The author must ensure that the work written is entirely original and if the author uses the work and / or sentences of others it must use citations or be quoted properly.

4.

Double publishing or similarity of content:

 

An author should not publish manuscripts that describe the same research essence in more than one journal or publisher. Sending the same text to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

5.

Source Recognition:

 

Proper recognition of the work of others must always be given. Authors must cite publications or ideas that have influence in determining the nature of the work reported.

6.

Report Compiler:

 

The names of authors listed should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, implementation, or interpretation of the research reported. All people who have contributed significantly must be registered as co-authors. Parties who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project must be recognized or registered as contributors. The lead author must ensure that the co-authors whose names are listed in the report are those that are truly eligible to be included, and that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the final version of the report and have agreed to publish the report.

7.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

 

All authors must disclose in the text of the report any financial or substantive conflict of interest that might be expected to affect the results or interpretation of the draft text.

8.

A fundamental error in the published work:

 

When the authors find significant errors or inaccuracies in the published work, the author is obliged to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to withdraw or correct the work.

9.

Risk and Humans as Subjects:

 

If the research involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that are at high risk in their use, the author must mention this in the report text.

 

 

 

 

Editor’s task

 

1.

The Principle of Justice:

 

The editor always evaluates the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.

Confidentiality:

 

The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about the manuscript submitted to anyone other than the author, reviewer, potential reviewer, editorial advisors and publisher.

3.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

 

Unpublished material but mentioned in a proposed paper may not be used in the editor's personal research without the written consent of the author.

4.

Decision of Publication:

 

The journal editorial board is responsible for deciding articles to be published. The editors can be guided by the policies of the journal editorial board and are limited by legal provisions such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors can negotiate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

5.

Manuscript Review:

 

The editor must ensure that each initial script has been evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must regulate and use peer review fairly and wisely. The editor must explain the peer review process in informing the author and indicating which parts of the journal are reviewed. The editor must use the appropriate peer reviewer for the manuscript to be published by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding people with conflicts of interest.

 

 

 

 

Reviewers / Mitra Bebestari’s task

 

 

1.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

 

Peer review helps the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with the author can also help the author in improving the quality of the manuscript.

2.

Accuracy:

 

Any reviewer who is selected but feels ineligible to review the research reported in the manuscript or knows that a quick review is impossible is required to notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

3.

Objectivity Standards:

 

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism from the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4.

Confidentiality:

 

Every script accepted for review must be a confidential document. Manuscripts may not be displayed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

5.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

 

Important information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers are prohibited from linking texts with conflicts of interest caused by competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and there is a connection with one of the authors, companies or institutions related to the text of the report.

6.

Source Recognition:

 

The reviewer must identify the work that has been published that is relevant but has not been cited by the author. A statement that observations, derivations, or arguments that have been previously reported must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers must also increase the attention of editors regarding the substantial similarities or overlaps between the reviewed manuscripts and any other published papers that they are aware of.