Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Alauddin Scientific Journal of Nursing (ASJN) has agreed to follow the ethical standards as determined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Author(s) must obedient and pay attention to authorship, plagiarism, duplicate (redundant) publication, fabrication of data, manipulation of citation, as well as ethical approval and Intellectual Property Rights. Alauddin Scientific Journal of Nursing (ASJN) takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero-tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use tools of plagiarism to check submissions against previous publications.
Every article published in the ASJN was an original manuscript, not published double, does not contain elements of plagiarism, and has been through a peer-review process to ensure the quality of the articles in order to contribute to science in the field of nursing. The editing team did not reveal any personal information about the manuscript to anyone other than the author and upholds objectivity in making decisions publishing articles.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address 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 will be linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of 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 the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, 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. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Alauddin Scientific Journal of Nursing (ASJN) will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
Authorship and Contributorship
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 is responsible to ensure that all appropriate co-authors have been included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to the submission of the paper for publication.
The journal only accepts manuscripts that have not been previously published nor being considered for publication elsewhere. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subjected to similarity check procedure to identify any indication of plagiarism using Turnitin. The editorial board is responsible to follow up any indication of plagiarism conducted by the author(s).
The journal implements the peer review policy as a means to ensure the quality of the publication in the journal. The peer-review process consists of initial review, double-blind peer-review, and the decision by the editor.
Initial Review: The editor evaluates the submitted manuscript to determine if the content is suitable for the journal. Manuscripts with contents that are not suitable for the journal will be returned immediately to the author(s).
Peer-Review: Submitted manuscripts that have passed the initial review are subjected to double-blind peer-review, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the review process. Minimum of two reviewers is assigned to evaluate and provide the recommendation for a manuscript. In assigning the reviewers, the editor is responsible to avoid the conflict of interest during the review process.
Decision: The editor makes the final decision on the acceptability of a manuscript based on the comments and recommendations of the reviewers.
Duties of Editors, Reviewers, and Authors
The following statements describe the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal: the editor, the reviewer, and the author.
Duties of Editors
The decision on the publication of article: The Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editors are guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding copyright and plagiarism. The Editors may confer with editorial board members or reviewers in making this final decision.
Fair play: Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, or citizenship.
Confidentiality: The Editor, the Editorial Board Members, 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.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to the editorial decision: Peer review assists the editors and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with, others except as authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors/editorial board member'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 conflicts of interest: Reviewers should not review 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.
Data access, retention, and reproducibility: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant and concurrent publications: 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.
Acknowledgment 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 manuscript: 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
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.
Complaints and Appeals
Alauddin Scientific Journal of Nursing (ASJN) will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the Journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline. The complaint cases should be sent by email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
The editorial team strives to ensure that every article published in Alauddin Scientific Journal of Nursing (ASJN) is entirely accurate. Problems raised after publication fall into different categories, and result in different responses:
- Erratum: Where the production process has introduced an error into the article
- Corrigendum: Where the authors notice a mistake that has not been introduced by editorial team
- Expression of Concern: Where there are issues which may affect the validity of the scientific record, such as suspected image manipulation, but the authors are not willing to publish a Corrigendum
- Retraction: Where there are major issues affecting the validity of the scientific record, such as duplicate publication or proven plagiarism
In all cases, the editorial team will work in collaboration with the authors, to determine the best option. If the issue was raised by a third party, they are also kept informed. If anyone suspects a post-publication issue we ask them to contact the editorial team immediately through email email@example.com, providing sufficient detail to undertake an investigation.