Home / Next Page

Departement of Internal Medicine Division of Respirology and Critical Care Internal Medicine
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine University of Indonesia,
Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital
Jl. Diponegoro No. 71 Jakarta INDONESIA
Fax: 021-31902461
E-mail: ina.j.chest@gmail.com 
+6221 314 9704 
+6221 319 02461
 ISSN : 2355-4584

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors1 and the position statements developed by the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore 20102.

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making
this decision. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish
corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Fair play
The editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the

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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas
obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor should
recuse oneself from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other
1 For further details, please visit the following link http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf
2 For further details, please visit the following link http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf
member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with
any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

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.

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.

Any 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.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted 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 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 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 works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been 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 manuscript to more than
one journal concurrently 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 paper and have agreed to its
submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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.


1. Bosch X, Hernández C, Pericas, JM, Doti P, Maruŝić A, Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals, PLoS One (2012), December 7(12): e51928
2. COPE Committee on Publication Ethics, Council of Science Editors, CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012
3. Council of Science Editors, CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012, Digital Images and Misconduct
4. Fanelli D, How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data, PLoS ONE (2009), May 4(5): e5738
5. Fang FC, Steen GR, Casadevall A, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 1, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
6. Rossner M, Yamada KM, What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation, The Journal of Cell Biology (2004), July 166(1): 11-15
7. Springer guide on how to interpret results using iThenticate Software
8.The Office of Research Integrity, Newsletter, Volume 21, No.1, December 2012
9.The Office of Research Integrity, ORI "Forensic Images Samples" for the quick examination of scientific images
10. The Office of Research Integrity, Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing
11. The Scientific Research Society, Inc, Honor in Science, 1986, USA
12.The Scientific Research Society, Inc, The Responsible Researcher: Paths and Pitfalls, 1999, USA
13.Van Noorden R, The trouble with retractions, Published online 5 October 2011, Nature 478, 26-28 (2011), doi:10.1038/478026a
14.Wager E, How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE (Committee On
Publication Ethics) discussion paper, 26th April 2011
15.Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S, Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics, Croatian Medical Journal (2009), December 50(6): 532-535
16.WAME World Association of Medical Editors, Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals


Home / Next Page

Home / Next Page