Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

FOCUS AND SCOPE

Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK): Journal of community service which is expected to be a medium for delivering findings, innovations and application of scientific technology in the health sector supported by practitioners in the health sector. Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK): a community service journal is a peer-reviewd journal and an open access journal that focuses on health. This focus covers the relevant areas and scope:

  • Nursing
  • Midwifery
  • Community and health Nutrition
  • Physiotherapy
  • Pharmacy
  • Public Health

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Publication of articles in Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a valuable contribution to the field. Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers.

Initial evaluation of manuscripts

The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted. Although rare, it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK). Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Type of peer review

All submission manuscripts with the principle of double-blind peer review by qualified reviewers in their field will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates the already published works, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication.

Review reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • It is original by stating the objectives and gaps clearly
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Have results/findings which are presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work
  • Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process.

Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board. The editors then decide based on the reviewer’s recommendation from several possibilities: Rejected; Require major revision; Require minor revision; Accepted.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not currently a reviewer of Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) but would like to be added to the list of reviewers, don't hesitate to contact us (jak.stikba@gmail.com). The benefits of reviewing Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) include seeing and evaluating the latest work in the related research areas early and being acknowledged in our list of reviewers. You may also be able to cite your work of Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) as part of your professional development requirements.

 

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) published by Research and Community Service Center STIKes Baiturrahim Jambi (PPPM STIKBA) is a peer-reviewed journal that contains scientific articles from various scientific disciplines and adopted in the result of various community service activities in the health sector. This journal is published 3 times a year (January, June and November)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative.

Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

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...

 

Publication Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) is a peer-reviewed journal published Research and Community Service Center STIKes Baiturrahim Jambi (PPPM STIKBA). This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewed and the publisher. This statement based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Research and Community Service Center STIKes Baiturrahim Jambi (PPPM STIKBA) as publisher of Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing exceptionally seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, Research and Community Service Center STIKes Baiturrahim Jambi (PPPM STIKBA), and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Publication decisions

The editor of Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should publish. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. 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. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor 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

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

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 help the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

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

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must treat as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany by the appropriate 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 of which they have personal knowledge.

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 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.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. 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, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution 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 there are others who 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 appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article 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 own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Reference Management

REFERENCE MANAGEMENT

In writing references, Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) is required to use Mendeley (Reference Management Software)

 

Plagiarism Check Policy

PLAGIARISM CHECK POLICY

The editor will screen manuscript plagiarism using the Turnitin app. The maximum similarity is 30%, and the author must reduce it after the review evaluation process. The editor provides this facility. As the comment editor on the manuscript process, who will deliver the screening results simultaneously? Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Jurnal Abdimas Kesehatan (JAK) Editorial Team using the Turnitin app.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is the unethical act of copying someone else’s initial ideas, processes, results, or words without explicit acknowledgment of the original author and source. Self-plagiarism occurs when an author utilizes a large part of their previously published work without appropriate references. This can range from getting the same manuscript published in multiple journals to modifying a previously published manuscript with new data.

Types of Plagiarism

Full Plagiarism: Previously published content is considered full plagiarism without changes to the text, idea, and grammar. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one’s own.

Partial Plagiarism: If the content is a mixture of multiple sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, it is known as partial plagiarism.

Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal.

Please Note:

  1. Full plagiarism, partial plagiarism, and self-plagiarism are not allowed.
  2. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  3. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

 

Author Fee

AUTHOR FEE

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)
Authors are not required to pay an Article Submission Fee as part of the submission process to contribute to review costs.

Article Publication: 350.000 (IDR)

 

Review Guidelines

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please please note the following questions:

  • Is the article requested to be reviewed under your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor or recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Do you have the time to review this paper? Who must complete the review process within two weeks? If you agree and require a more extended period, notify the editor or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer; disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing.

Review Evaluation

Your review result will help the editor decide whether to publish the articles in our journal. The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

We are conducting a review.

1. Title, abstract, and keywords.

The article's title should be concise and informative and describe the article’s content. The abstract should briefly describe the paper's contents: the research objectives, the methods, the results achieved, and the principal conclusions. The keywords should be specific and reflect what is essential about the article.

2. Problem Formulation.

Problem recognition and its significance, Clear problem identification and Appropriate research questions, Coverage of problem complexity, and Well-defined objectives

3. Research Methodology.

A concise explanation of research methodology is prevalent; Reasons to choose particular methods are well described; Research design is accurate; Sample design is appropriate; Data collection process is proper; Data analysis methods are relevant and state-of-the-art.

4. Research Findings.

Empirical and theoretical benefits; Economic benefits; Existence of new findings.

5. Reference

References are thoroughly covered in the article; the Recency of contacts provided is strong; Citations and referencing are employed correctly and truthfully.

6. Article’s Presentation and Systematic Order.

Framework and The flow of article presentation, Readability, Grammar, and Writing style.

7. Overall Evaluation

The reviewer gives comments on how to improve the papers. In the end, the reviewer needs to make a recommendation to the editor. The suggestions are as follows:

  1. Rejected
  2. Major revision*
  3. Minor revision*
  4. Accepted

*Note about revision. If the correction is required, please indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.

THE DECISION

The editor will have the final decision on whether to accept or reject the article. The editor may request the author to revise the report before making the final decision.

STEPS FOR SUBMITTING THE REVIEW

Dear Reviewer, please follow the following steps while submitting your review reports;

  1. Accept to review
  2. Download the manuscript (supplementary files, if any),
  3. Submit your review report
  4. Upload the review report
  5. Choose your decision and click the button submit.

The next author is required to respond to the review results from reviewers who have been sent and decided by the Editor. Editor's decisions are usually the result of Reviewer recommendations. In OJS, the decisions to be received by the Author are as follows:

  1. Accept Submission, meaning that the reviewer recommends that the script be properly accepted without any improvement.
  2. Revision Required, meaning that reviewers recommend that the script needs minor repairs without having to review.
  3. Resubmit for Review, meaning that reviewers recommend scripts need to be reviewed again by reviewers. This is because too many revisions are needed.
  4. Decline Submission, meaning that the reviewer recommends that the text be rejected. Usually related to the quality of the text.

The period of review of the manuscript is 2 weeks. If the reviewer has not completed his review assignment in accordance with the stipulated time, the section editor or editorial secretariat will remind the reviewer 2 days before the due date of the review.

Rating reviews are carried out by the section editor or editorial secretariat using the five-point quality scale (1-5). The basis of the reviewer's work assessment is based on the timeliness and results of recommendations for the manuscript review decision.

Reviewers and writers are provided with an information link to the provisions of the blind review script when uploading files on the journal site.