JANH Call For Reviewer 2022
Table of contents:
Aim, Scope, and Focus
The Primary Aim of the Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) is to promote evidence-based policy and practice by publishing high-quality research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion or perception studies, and protocol. The JANH seeks studies that use the most rigorous designs and methodologies appropriate for the research topic of interest to evaluate and comprehend complicated healthcare interventions and health policies. The JANH aims to improve research quality by publishing methodological papers introducing or expanding on analytic tools, measurements, and research procedures. The JANH also aims to disseminate research results to other researchers so that they can be developed and become active in the clinical or community area in the nursing and health sector based on evidence.
The Focus of the JANH is original research, case studies, review studies (scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses), perspective studies, protocol studies, and the development of other research designs related to nursing and health sciences.
The Scope of the JANH includes nursing, health sciences (public health, midwifery, family medicine, pharmacy in the health community, nutrition, psychology, rehabilitation, epidemiology in health), leadership and management in health, health policy, hospital administration, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and education in nursing and health.
Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent
Conflict of Interest
A Declaration of Conflicting Interests policy refers to a formal policy a journal may have to require a conflict-of-interest statement or disclosure from a submitting or publishing author(s)—guideline based on COPE. Conflicts of interest arise when author(s), reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
- Reviewers: To ensure that the review process is free of conflicts of Interest: 1) Editors should select a guest or section editor when there is a conflict of interest concerning an author(s). Editors should ensure that reviewers are free of conflict of interest concerning an author(s). 2) Reviewers should contact the editorial office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of reviewing an article.3) Minor conflicts do not disqualify a reviewer from reporting on an article but will be taken into account when considering the reviewer’s recommendations.
- Author(s): All author(s) and co-author(s) are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when submitting their article (e.g., employment, consulting fees, research contracts, stock ownership, patent licenses, advisory affiliations, etc.). If the article is subsequently accepted for publication, this information should be included in the end section.
- Editors: Editors should not make any editorial decisions or get involved in the editorial process if they have any conflicts of Interest (financial or otherwise) for a submitted manuscript. An editor may have conflicts of Interest if a manuscript is submitted from their academic department or institution in such situations; The JANH has a policy that is When an editor submits their work to their journal, a colleague in the editorial office must manage the manuscript, and the editor/author(s) must withdraw from the discussion and decision about it.
Our policy is to ensure that all articles published by the JANH report on work that is morally acceptable and expects the author(s) to follow the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. To achieve this, we aim to appraise the ethical aspects of any submitted work that involves human participants, whatever descriptive label is given to that work, including research, audit, and sometimes debate.
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not occurred within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors may reject the manuscript and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Statement of Ethics Approval
We require every research article submitted to include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required and why), including the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board, the number/ID of the approval, and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.
In addition, we welcome detailed explanations of how investigators and author(s) have considered and justified their work's ethical and moral basis. If such detail does not easily fit into the manuscript, please provide it in the cover letter or upload it as a supplemental file when submitting the article. We will also be pleased to see copies of explanatory information given to participants. Even if we do not include such detailed information in a final published version, we may make it available to peer reviewers and editorial committees. We have already asked peer reviewers to consider and comment on the ethics of the submitted work.
Appraisal of Ethical Issues
Editorial appraisal of ethical issues goes beyond simply deciding whether participants in a study gave informed consent, although this is one very important issue to consider. Editors should judge whether the overall design and conduct of each piece of work are morally justifiable, as summed up by the following questions:
- How much does this deviate from current normal (accepted, local) clinical practice?
- What is the (additional) burden imposed on the patients (or others)?
- What are (additional) risks posed to the patients (or others)?
- What benefit might accrue to the patients (or others)?
- What are the potential benefits to society (future patients)?
Even when a study has been approved by a research ethics committee or institutional review board, editors may be worried about the ethics of the work. Editors may then ask the author(s) for more detailed information, such as:
- How they justified the ethical and moral basis of the work
- to provide the contact details of the research ethics committee that reviewed the work so that the journal can request further information and justification from that committee
- to explain what ethical issues they considered and how they justified their work for studies that have not been reviewed by research ethics committees or institutional review boards
Editors may ask other editorial colleagues to evaluate the ethical aspects of an article, the author(s) comments, and the response of the relevant research ethics committee to the journal’s queries about ethics approval. This consultation may be informal, between the journal’s editors, or more formal, through seeking the advice of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Problems referred to COPE will be considered anonymous summaries of the relevant articles written by the editors concerned.
What happens when the journal considers a study to be unethical?
We believe that editors must take on issues of unethical audit or research, not to seek punishment for the author(s), but to prevent unethical practices and to protect patients.
Suppose the Editor, with or without the advice of its ethics committee and/or COPE, considers the work in a submitted article ethically unsound. In that case, the editor may seek further advice or recommend an investigation or action. The fact that the article would have been rejected anyway for other scientific or editorial reasons would not prevent the editor from taking such further action on serious ethics problems.
In the first instance, the editor would usually contact the head of the department where the work was done to explain their concerns and recommend a local investigation. Secondly, the editor might write to the professional registration body of the paper’s guarantor or principal investigator.
In rare instances, the journal might publish an article despite ethical problems in its reported work. The usual reason would be that work done in one setting might not reach the ethical standard of work done in another because of differing local resources and standards for health care and research. In deciding to publish such an article, we would consider the study's context carefully and aim to balance the overall benefit to society against the possible harm to the research participants.
All material published in JANH that reports experiments performed using animals must adhere to high ethical standards concerning animal welfare. Manuscripts will be considered for publication only if the work described: 1) follows international, national, and institutional guidelines for the humane treatment of animals and complies with relevant legislation; 2) has been approved by the ethics review committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists); 3) for studies involving non-human primates, demonstrates that the standards meet those of the NC3Rs primates guidelines; 4) for studies using client-owned animals, demonstrates a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care, and involves informed client consent.
Before a manuscript can be accepted, the author(s) must:
- Confirm that legal and ethical requirements have been met regarding the humane treatment of animals described in the study;
- Specify the ethical review committee approval process in the Materials or Methods section and the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines followed.
Editors can reject manuscripts based on ethical or animal welfare concerns. Papers may be rejected on ethical grounds if the study involves unnecessary pain, distress, suffering, or lasting harm to animals or if the severity of the experimental procedure does not appear to be justified by the value of the work presented.
What happens when the journal considers a study unethical?
Manuscripts describing animal research must include a justification for the use of animals and the particular species used. They should also provide details of animal welfare, including information about housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment, a description of steps taken to minimize suffering, humane endpoints, and the method of euthanasia. If the study has any implication for the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement), these should be discussed in enough detail so that readers can implement the 3Rs in similar experiments.
In the JANH, patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Author(s) should disclose to these patients whether any potentially identifiable material might be available online or in print after publication. As local regulations or laws dictate, patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, author(s), or both. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, author(s) should provide assurance, and editors should note that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.
Peer Review Process/Policy
The Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) in the publication of the author(s) article through a fast and precise publication process through an initial assessment by the editor and the editorial team. The goal is to decide whether the submitted manuscript can be peer-reviewed or rejected for the right reasons.
The Chief Editor decides to publish the manuscript based on the assessment of the editorial team and/or peer review. A committee of editors and members of the reviewer team assesses manuscripts. Its purpose is to decide whether the manuscript will continue to be sent to peer reviewers and provide a quick decision for evaluation or assessment. Acceptance of manuscripts is based on novelty or relevance to scope at the JANH.
If there is a condition, a manuscript is returned to the author(s) with a request for manuscript improvement to make it easier for editors and reviewers to decide whether the manuscript can be reviewed. The decision-making process includes:
- Initial Editorial Assessment: The JANH conducts an initial assessment by the editorial committee and editors consisting of editorial team members to decide whether the submitted manuscript will be submitted for peer review. The primary purpose is to decide whether to send the paper for peer review or to reject it. The main point is scope, originality, compliance with the guideline, and language. Sometimes a paper will be returned to the author(s) requesting revisions to help editors decide whether to send it out for reviews. Author(s) may expect the decision of the Initial Editorial Assessment from this stage of the review process will be given approximately 3 weeks after submission.
- Review Process: Manuscripts that pass the initial Editorial Assessment, then a review is carried out by a minimum of two reviewers based on their expertise with method a double-blind review process, which means the author(s) and peer-reviewers do not know each other’s identity. The review process is approximately 3 weeks from review to completion of one stage of the review process. If there is a difference in indecision between the two reviewers, the editor will seek the consideration of a third reviewer. The reviewers should complete the review within three weeks in each reviewing round after the review request was sent.
- Editor's Decision: The decision to accept for publication is based on the peer reviewer's recommendations, based on which two acceptance recommendations are required. If there is a difference between the two reviewers’ recommendations, the editor has the right to seek the third reviewer's consideration. The final decision to publish is made by the editor-in-chief and editorial committee (national or international advisory board), considering the reviewers' advice. The final decision of the manuscript (accepted, accepted with minor revision, accepted with major revision, rejected or re-submit) is made by Editor in Chief (together with Editorial Board if required) based on the reviewers’ critical comments. The editor’s decision is final. The decision will be given approximately 3 weeks after the review.
- Final Report: The final report of the decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author(s), along with any recommendations made by the reviewers that may include verbatim comments.
The Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the copying and disclosure of other people's thoughts or words or other people's articles or themselves, which makes it appear as if they are the result of one's wealth without permission or acknowledgment, or by not citing the source correctly or being unable to search. Plagiarism can take various forms of taking other people's work, from copying literature or paraphrasing other people's work.
The Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) applies the policy of screening for plagiarism. All articles in this publication are original: each article's content (in whole or in part) has not been knowingly republished without specific citation to the original release. The JANH checks for plagiarism on manuscripts using a credible plagiarism detector, Turnitin. The JANH will immediately reject papers that contain plagiarism that exceeds the specified limit or self-plagiarism occurs. Plagiarism is not acceptable in JANH submissions. Manuscripts in the Initial Editorial Assessment Step are checked for plagiarism before starting the review process.
- Manuscripts declared to have passed must have at least a less than 20% similarity level.
- Should we find more than 20% of the similarity index, the article will be returned to the author(s) for correction and resubmission. Manuscripts with a low level of similarity mean the quality of the writing is good and can be continued to be given to reviewers.
- When plagiarism is identified, the Editor in Chief is responsible for the review of this paper and will agree on measures according to the extent of plagiarism detected in the paper in agreement with the following guidelines:
Level of Plagiarism
- Minor: A short article section is plagiarized without significant data or ideas from the other paper. Action: A warning is given to the author(s), and a request to change the text and properly cite the original article is made
- Intermediate: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized without proper citation to the original paper. Action: The submitted article is rejected, and the author(s) are forbidden to submit further articles for one year
- Severe: A significant portion of a paper is plagiarized that involves reproducing original results or ideas presented in another publication. Action: The paper is rejected, and the author(s) are forbidden to submit further articles for five years.
Things to note:
- It is understood that all author(s) are responsible for the content of their submitted paper as they all read and understand JANH's Copyright and Licensing Terms. If a penalty is imposed for plagiarism, all author(s) will be subject to the same penalty.
- Suppose the second case of plagiarism by the same author(s) is identified. In that case, a decision on the measures to be enforced will be made by the Editorial board (Editor-in-Chief and Editorial members) with the Chair of the editor-in-chief. The author(s) might be forbidden to submit further articles forever.
- This policy applies also to material reproduced from another publication by the same author(s). If an author(s) uses text or figures that have previously been published, the corresponding paragraphs or figures should be identified and the previous publication referenced. It is understood that much of the material was previously published in the case of a review paper or a paper of a tutorial nature.
- The author(s) should identify the source of the previously published material and obtain permission from the original author(s) and the publisher. Suppose an author(s) submits a manuscript to JANH with significant overlap with a manuscript submitted to another journal simultaneously, and this overlap is discovered during the review process or after the publications of both papers. In that case, the editor of the other journal is notified, and the case is treated as a severe plagiarism case. Significant overlap means using identical or almost identical figures and identical or slightly modified text for one-half or more of the paper. For self-plagiarism of less than one-half of the paper but more than one-tenth of the paper, the case shall be treated as intermediate plagiarism. If self-plagiarism is confined to the methods section, the case shall be considered minor plagiarism.
- Suppose an author(s) uses some of his previously published material to clarify the presentation of new results. In that case, the previously published material shall be identified, and the difference to the present publication shall be mentioned. Permission to republish must be obtained from the copyright holder. In the case of a manuscript initially published in conference proceedings and then submitted for publication in JANH either in identical or expanded form, the author(s) must identify the name of the conference proceedings and the publication date and obtain permission to republish from the copyright holder. The editor may decide not to accept this paper for publication.
- Author(s) be permitted to use material from an unpublished presentation, including visual displays, in a subsequent journal publication. If a submitted publication is originally published in another language, the author(s) must identify the original publication's title, date, and journal, and the copyright must be obtained. The editor may accept such a translated publication to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. The editor may select a specific paper that had been published (e.g., a”historic” paper in nursing and health sciences) for republication to provide a better perspective (perspective study) of a series of papers published in one issue of JANH. This republication shall be identified as such. The date and journal of the original publication shall be given, and the permission of the author(s) and the publisher shall be obtained.
- The JANH author(s) editor for the Journal is responsible for maintaining the list of authors subjected to penalties and will check that no author(s) of a submitted paper are on this list. If a banned author(s) is identified, the author(s) editor will inform the Editor-in-Chief, who will take appropriate measures. This policy will be posted on the website with the instructions for submitting a manuscript, and a copy will be sent to the author(s) with the confirmation email upon initial receipt of their original manuscript.
Therefore, to properly assess whether an author(s) has carried out plagiarism activities, JANH explains this:
- Literal copying. The author(s) copies another author(s) work verbatim, in whole or in part, without permission or citing or citing the source. This condition can be identified by comparing the original manuscript with manuscripts suspected of plagiarism.
- Substantial copying. The author(s) reproduces a large part of another author(s) work without permission and acknowledging or citing the source.
- Paraphrasing. Writers process ideas, words, or phrases from sources into new sentences. This practice becomes unethical when the author(s) does not quote correctly or acknowledge the original work/author(s). This form of plagiarism is a form that is more difficult to identify in the form of publications.
The Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) is published quarterly (June and December ).
Article Processing Charges (APC)
The Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) is open-access and freely available online. All published articles are free for anyone to read and download worldwide. To sustain this model, we now charge author(s) an article processing charge (APC) that covers the range of publishing services we provide, including article production and hosting, liaison with abstracting and indexing services, and customer services.
The APC is payable when the manuscript is editorially accepted for publication and is charged to either author(s), funders, or affiliated institutions. The APC is IDR: 250,000 (for Indonesian author(s) or USD 20 (for non-Indonesian author(s). The payment can be made by bank transfer. Information regarding the bank account is emailed to the corresponding author(s).