JHNS is a peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Magelang that is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the principal editor, the associate editor, the editorial board, the reviewer­­­­­ and the publisher. This statement is based on the Rector Regulation of Universitas Muhammadiyah Magelang Number 169/PRN/II.3.AU/F/2022. Our responsibility is to publish original work of value to the intellectual community in the best possible form and to the highest possible standards. We expect similar standards from our reviewers and authors. Honesty, originality, fair dealing on the part of authors, fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve our goal. JHNS is committed to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions, and providing a legal review if necessary.

Allegation of research misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research, writing an article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles published in scientific journals, Editors are responsible for ensuring the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE, ICMJE, and WAME to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the allegation's validity and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are possible, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Authors have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. JHNS will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Ethical Oversight

If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, 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 this matter, whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not. To ensure best publication practices, JHNS defines the duties and responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers, as described below.

 

Duties of the Editor

Publication decisions
The editors of JHNS ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal itself do not determine decisions to edit and publish. The editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality
The 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
The Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used to their 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.

Management of unethical behaviors
The editors and the publisher should take rationally responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported unethical publishing behavior will be considered, even if discovered years after publication. 

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial ‘opinion’ or perspective pieces should be identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review when requested.

Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. We will check each manuscript using a plagiarism checker to ensure the originality of the article. Furthermore, each submitted article should be accompanied by a letter of statement from the author(s) stating that the article is free from plagiarism.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication
Papers describing the same research should not be published in multiple journals or primary publications. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript already published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable. JHNS does not accept manuscripts that have been previously published in any other online platforms, including repositories, institutional archives, academic networking sites, or other academic websites. Authors submitting manuscripts to JHNS must ensure that their work is original and has not been publicly disseminated in any form before submission.

Any submissions found to have been previously published elsewhere will be rejected at the initial assessment or during or after the peer review process. Authors are encouraged to disclose any prior dissemination of their work at the time of submission to ensure compliance with JHNS publication policies.

Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and 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 while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committees has approved them. The authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. For human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been carried out per The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans.  

Declaration of competing interests
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any competing interests or conflicts of interest. The detailed information can be found here. 

Image integrity
Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image is unacceptable. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Authors should comply with any specific policy for graphical images that the relevant journal applies, e.g., providing the original images as supplementary material with the article or depositing these in a suitable repository. The author can add images or pictures, or figures as illustrations with appropriate citations or references.

 

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Please ensure that each reviewer follows this checklist:

DO

• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This presents to the editor that you have read and understood the research. 
• Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, has a sufficient impact, and adds to the knowledge base in nursing.
• When commenting, do so using short, clearly-defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to. 
• Assess whether the article conforms to the author's guidelines in JHNS. 
• Please provide a specific comments and suggestions, for example: does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone? 
• Check the graphical abstracts and/or highlights provided by the authors.
• Keep your comments strictly factual and don’t speculate on the motives of the authors. 
• Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references. 
• Consider feedback on the presentation of data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. 
• Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism or research falsification, or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible.
• Be aware of potential bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions that negatively impact the academic publishing process.

DON’T

• Feel the need to comment on the spelling, grammar, or layout of the article. If the research is sound, but let down by poor language, then recommend to the editor that the authors have their paper language edited.
• Make Ad hominem comments. "Ad hominem" comments refer to personal attacks or insults directed at the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
• Dismiss alternative viewpoints or theories that might conflict with your own opinions on a topic; when reviewing, maintain an open perspective.
• Share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. Reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents.
• Suggest that the author include citations to your (or your associates’) work unless for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase citation counts or enhance the visibility of your work (or that of your associates). 

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they know personally.

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 with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.