Publication Ethic

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Statement
Nurse Point Journal of Nursing (p-ISSN:.......; e-ISSN: ......) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Yayasan Pendidikan Kardin Assidiq committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in publishing and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor in chief, the associate editor, the editorial board, reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher, must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity and quality of the scholarly record.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism while producing, conducting, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors or reporting research outcomes. When authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other significant irregularities in articles published in scientific journals, Editors must ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In instances of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board shall follow COPE's best practices to help resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will involve an investigation of the allegation conducted by the Editors. A manuscript submitted that is determined to have such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a paper that has been published is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction may be issued and will be connected to the original article.

The initial step involves verifying the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it aligns with the definition of research misconduct. This preliminary step also includes evaluating whether those claiming misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

When scientific misconduct or other significant research irregularities are possible, the allegations are communicated to the corresponding author, who is requested to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. After receiving and assessing the response, further review and input from experts (like statistical reviewers) may be sought. In cases where it appears unlikely that misconduct occurred, clarifications or additional analyses, published as letters to the editor and often accompanied by a correction notice and amendments to the published article, may be adequate.

Institutions are expected to conduct a thorough and appropriate investigation of claims of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have a significant responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By appropriately addressing concerns regarding scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the assessment of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Nurse Point Journal of Nursing will continue to meet its responsibilities in upholding the validity and integrity of the scientific record, as outlined in the Plagiarism Policy.

Complaints & Appeals 

NPJN will implement a clear and concise procedure for addressing complaints related to the journal, its Editorial Staff, its Editorial Board, or its Publisher. Complaints will be directed to the appropriate party to clarify the issue. The scope of these complaints encompasses various aspects of the journal's operations, including the editorial process, instances of citation manipulation, unfair treatment by editors or reviewers, and peer-review manipulation. COPE guidelines will handle all complaint cases.

Ethical Oversight

Suppose the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use. In that case, the author must identify these in the manuscript to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. The Authors must provide legal and ethical clearance from the association or legal organization if required.

If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the authors should justify whether the data or information will be hidden securely.

To ensure the best publication practices, Nurse Point Journal of Nursing (NPJN) outlines the responsibilities and duties of Editors, Authors, and Reviewers as described below.

Responsibilities of Editors

Publication Decisions
Editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts under consideration for publication undergo peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor in Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be published based on the validation of the research, its significance to researchers and readers, the reviewers' feedback, and any applicable legal requirements relating to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers to inform this decision.

Fair Play
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on their academic merit factors, such as importance, originality, validity, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Decisions are made without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophies, or institutional affiliations. External governmental or agency policies do not influence editing and publication decisions. The Principal Editor has full authority over the journal's editorial content and publication timing.

Confidentiality
Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors will not use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. Any privileged information or ideas obtained while handling a manuscript will be kept confidential and not used to the editor's advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts with conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers. They will request another editorial board member to handle the manuscript in such cases.

Management of Unethical Behaviors
Editors and publishers should take appropriate measures when ethical complaints are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or a published article. Every reported instance of unethical publishing behaviour will be considered, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting Standards
Authors of original research are expected to represent the work conducted accurately and the findings, accompanied by an unbiased discussion of the work's significance. The manuscript must include sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the study. Review articles should be accurate, impartial, and comprehensive, while editorial opinion or perspective pieces must be marked as such. Any fraudulent or knowingly false statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
Authors should be prepared to provide raw data associated with their paper for editorial examination. If possible, they should ensure public access to this data and retain it for a reasonable period after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must confirm that their work is entirely original. If they have incorporated the work or language of others, it must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism can take multiple forms, including falsely claiming another's work as one's own, copying or paraphrasing significant portions of someone else's work without acknowledgement, or asserting results from other researchers' studies. All forms of plagiarism are considered unethical publishing practices and are not acceptable. Each manuscript will be checked using a plagiarism detection tool to verify its originality. NPJN employs iThenticate, a tool for detecting plagiarism. The similarity index percentage for each article is carefully assessed, with any percentage exceeding 20% considered plagiarism. Manuscripts identified to contain plagiarism or self-plagiarism will be promptly rejected.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
Manuscripts describing the same research should not be published in multiple journals. Authors should not submit a manuscript previously published in another journal for consideration. Submitting a manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is regarded as unethical publishing behaviour and is not acceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Authors must correctly acknowledge the work of others and cite all publications that have significantly influenced the study. Information gathered privately (from conversations, correspondence, or discussions) must not be used or reported without explicit written consent from the source. Authors should not utilize information acquired while serving in confidential roles, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have received explicit written consent from the involved authors.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research. All individuals who have significantly contributed should be recognized as co-authors. Others who have participated in specific significant aspects of the research should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its submission for publication.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works
Suppose an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work. In that case, they must promptly inform the journal editor or publisher and collaborate to retract or amend the paper. Suppose the editor or publisher learns of a significant error from a third party. In that case, it is the author's responsibility to quickly retract or correct the paper or provide the editor with evidence supporting the accuracy of the original work.

Hazards and Human Subjects
Any research involving human participants must obtain prior approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent ethics committee. Authors must include the approving body's name and the assigned study number with their submission. After thoroughly explaining the study's procedures, they must also provide a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants. Research must adhere to the ethical standards established in the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors are responsible for safeguarding the anonymity of participants. If photographs or other identifying information are used, explicit written consent must be secured.

Declaration of Competing Interests
All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with individuals or organizations that could be perceived as having an inappropriate influence (bias) on their work within the manuscript. It is essential to disclose all sources of financial support related to the research conducted and/or the preparation of the article, as well as the role of the sponsors, if applicable, in the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, report writing, and the decision to submit the article for publication. This information should also be provided if the funding sources had no involvement. Authors must declare any competing interests in the manuscript or paper template.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The peer review process aids the editor in making informed editorial choices and can also assist authors in improving their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

Promptness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to assess the research in a manuscript or realizes they cannot provide a timely review should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality
All manuscripts assigned for review must be treated as confidential materials. Reviewers should not share or discuss these manuscripts with anyone except as permitted by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted impartially. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions and provide supporting reasoning for their evaluations.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should recognize important works that the authors have not cited. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been reported previously must include the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also notify the editor of any significant similarities or overlaps between the reviewed manuscript and other published papers they know.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Confidential information or ideas obtained during the peer review must remain private and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should refrain from assessing manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any authors, organizations, or institutions connected to the papers.