Publication Ethics Policy

The Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) follows the standard guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (Version 2: December 2022) and The International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to deal with all possible aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, to deal with cases of research and publication violations.

image image


Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) is a peer-reviewed international journal. This statement explains the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in publishing articles in JANH. The following will explain research violations and outline the roles and duties of publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors. This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Four key activities for a successful editorial office from COPE, Version 2, 2022):

1. Ethical Publication Guidelines for Authors

Authors must include the following in the manuscript: 1) the definition of authority, 2) the responsibilities of authors and corresponding authors, 3) how author contributions (declared on submission and in the publication), 4) the declaration and contributions of non-authors. The JANH explains editorial policies for authors: procedure potential authorship disputes are managed, any author fee, data, and intellectual property policies, including copyright and license arrangements, research and publication ethics, including conflicts of interest, and peer review process, including if authors can nominate or exclude reviewers, and procedure for appeal (CORE Practice [CCP 2]). The ethical publications for Authors are:

  • Authorship and contributorship: All authors and co-authors must write transparently about who contributed to the work and in what capacity the article manages their potential ownership. The authors contributed to the manuscript. The author's contribution may be the research team, the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. Everyone who has made a significant contribution must be listed as a member of the authors. Someone who has participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project in the manuscript can be recognized or registered as a research contributor. Corresponding authors must ensure that all appropriate authors and no inappropriate authors are listed in the paper and that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript that will be submitted for publication.
  • Funding: Authors must include sources of research funding such as grants or sponsorships
  • Data and intellectual property policies: Authors retain ownership of their intellectual property, and any data shared with the journal is handled with the utmost confidentiality and used solely for the purpose of peer review and publication. The JANH encourages transparent documentation of data sources and appropriate citations to acknowledge the contributions of others.
  • Copyright and license arrangements: Authors are expected to adhere to ethical guidelines when submitting their work for publication. This includes ensuring they possess the necessary rights to the content they submit and that they have appropriately attributed any sources or materials used.
  • Declaration and conflicts of interest: All submissions must disclose all relationships that could present a potential conflict of interest.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must guarantee that they originally wrote the submitted manuscript. The work must not have been published previously nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere. If the work and/or words of others are included, they must be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors must ensure that their writing in the manuscript is original and is their work. Authors must agree to have their manuscript checked for plagiarism with less than 20% similarity to be accepted for publication. If the author's manuscript uses another person's work and/or words, the author must be written in an appropriate systematic citation or citation.
  • Reporting standards: The author provides original and accurate manuscripts submitted following the research results obtained. The data in the manuscript must be supported, original, and accurate. Manuscripts must match the template in detail and contain sufficient references to allow others to cite the work. Incorrect or intentionally inaccurate data and manuscript content constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable for journal publication.
  • Data access and citation: Authors may be requested to provide the raw data relevant to the paper for editorial review. They should also be prepared to provide public access to such data. Data must be cited, like articles, books, and web citations, and authors must include data citations as part of their reference list.
  • Reporting standards: Authors of original research papers should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance.
  • Human and Animal Rights: For research involving experiments involving humans, a statement of compliance is required to show that procedures were followed per the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national). For research that reports on experiments involving animals, authors are asked to indicate whether the institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.
  • Research ethics: The research must have received a statement of approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and, where applicable, informed consent. Clinical trials must have been registered in clinical trial registries in adherence with local and international standards.
  • Authors’ ethical statement: Authors are accountable for all aspects of their work (including full data access, data integrity, and the accuracy of the data analysis) in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
  • Data Access, Retention, and Reproducibility: Authors must provide raw data concerning the manuscript for editorial review and be prepared to provide public access to such data. The author must keep the original research data if at any time needed or requested by the editorial. The author has responsibility for the reproducibility of the data.
  • Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications. Authors are not permitted to publish the same manuscript in different journals. Authors submitting the same manuscript to different journals is unethical in publication and may not be accepted in JANH journals.
  • Acknowledgements of Sources: The authors should properly acknowledge any work in the manuscript that others have contributed. The author must clearly state the references used with the reference manager. If the author uses another person's work, that person must comply with the permission given. Authors must follow the procedures for citing publications or reports used in manuscripts submitted to JANH.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must inform or disclose in their manuscripts any financial, grant, or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the study. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed and made known. All authors should clarify anything that could cause a conflict of interest, such as employment, research fees, consultant fees, and intellectual property. Suppose the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the published manuscript. In that case, the author must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the published manuscript.
  • Fundamental errors in published work: 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.


2. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewer

All peer review processes are carried out in a transparent and well-managed manner. JANH provides training for editors and reviewers and has a policy on peer review specifications, a policy on applying the right review model (double blinding method review), and a policy handling conflicts of interest, appeals, and styles that may arise in peer review (CORE Practice [CCP 9]).

  • Selection of reviewers: The reviewer selection process involves inviting potential reviewers to apply by submitting their applications and curriculum vitae to the journal. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and suitability for the subject matter. This careful selection ensures that the chosen reviewers possess the necessary knowledge and insights to critically evaluate the submitted manuscripts critically, maintaining the high quality and integrity of the peer-review process.
  • Training for editor and reviewer: The journal's management actively conducts training sessions for both editors and reviewers, aiming to equip them with the necessary skills to effectively manage and fulfil their roles with a high level of quality. These training programs provide participants with comprehensive insights into the peer-review process, ethical guidelines, and effective communication techniques. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement, the journal ensures that its editorial team and reviewers are well-prepared to uphold rigorous standards, provide constructive feedback, and contribute to the overall excellence of the publication process.
  • Ethics of reviewing: review ethics, reviewers ensure no conflicts of interest, policies regarding confidentiality of author processes and materials, and procedures when a reviewer wishes to nominate a co-review.
  • Perform a review and time allowed: Manuscripts that pass the initial Editorial Assessment through a minimum of two reviewers based on their expertise with a double-blind review process, which means the authors 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.
  • Allegations of Research Misconduct: Research errors, such as falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism, in writing research reports. When authors are found to be involved in research violations or other serious writing irregularities involving articles that have already been published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. In cases of suspected infringement, editors and the Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to assist authors in resolving complaints and deal fairly with violations. This will include an investigation by the editor. Submissions found to contain these errors will be rejected. If there is a case where the published paper is found to contain such errors, it will be revoked and will be linked to the original article.
  • Review Report, ownership of the review report and transferability of reviews: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and well-documented assessments of the submitted manuscripts. It is imperative that the review process maintains a high level of professionalism and integrity, with reviewers refraining from personal biases or conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluations. The ownership of the review report rests with the reviewers, as their insights and feedback contribute significantly to the enhancement of the manuscript. The transferability of reviews is subject to journal policies and agreements, which could include sharing anonymized or aggregated feedback with the authors, fellow reviewers, or the editorial team to enrich the peer-review process and uphold transparency. Reviewers should be mindful of these ethical considerations to ensure a fair and trustworthy evaluation process.
  • Decisions on acceptance, revision, and rejection are made: 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-submitted) is made by the Editor in Chief (together with the Editorial Board if required) based on the reviewers’ critical comments. The editor’s decision is final.
  • Procedures for review of submitted revisions and handling appeals declared in the peer review process: Upon receiving a revised manuscript, the journal's editorial team follows a rigorous evaluation process to ensure that the revisions adequately address the feedback provided by reviewers. This involves a meticulous review of the revised content and an assessment of its alignment with the original recommendations. Appeals from authors are treated with the utmost fairness and professionalism. In cases where authors disagree with the initial decision or feedback, an appeals process is in place to provide an avenue for further discussion. This appeals process is designed to be transparent and unbiased, allowing authors to present their case and allowing reviewers to reevaluate their assessments if new compelling evidence is presented. The commitment to clear procedures for reviewing revisions and addressing appeals underscores the journal's dedication to maintaining the integrity and quality of the publication process. The complaint cases should be sent by email to
  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Reviewers have the task of assisting editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with authors, can also assist authors in improving the quality of articles to be published through revisions.
  • Promptness: The reviewers whom the editor has selected carry out their duties properly; if it is found that the reviewer cannot carry out their duties, they are obliged to report to the editor, and the review process will be transferred to other reviewers following the standards, the terms of the reviewer are correct.
  • Confidentiality: The reviewer has a duty for every manuscript received for review; it is a document that must be stored properly or is confidential. Reviewers cannot provide information about manuscripts received and discussed with others without the editor's permission.
  • Standards of Objectivity. The review has a duty to review manuscripts that must be done objectively. Reviewers are not allowed to give personal criticism. Reviewers must provide their information and views following the reviewer's scholarship and provide recommendations clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgements of Sources: Reviewers must identify relevant manuscripts for publication. The reviewer identifies the citation used by the author. Any statements relating to the manuscript's observations, derivations, or arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers may request a review from the editor to avoid substantial similarities or overlaps between manuscripts.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must be free from conflicts of interest with the authors. Information or privileged ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the personal benefit of the reviewer. Reviewers may not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions with which the papers are related.

Procedure-related for Allegations of Research Misconduct:

  1. Step one: Carry out clarification, determine the allegations' validity, and assess whether the allegations are consistent with the definition of research misconduct. It also involves determining whether the individual who alleged the infringement has a relevant conflict of interest regarding the writing, the author, or something else.
  2. Second step: If there is a scientific error or a deviation from other substantial research, the allegation is informed to the author and other authors and asked to provide a clear and detailed response.
  3. After the author's confirmation is accepted and evaluated, it is followed by further reviews, such as additional information about the involvement of other experts. For cases where there is no possibility of violations, clarifications, additional analysis, or both, it is sufficient to make a notification of corrections and corrections to the published article.
  4. Institutions are expected to take preventive measures such as proper and thorough investigations of suspected scientific violations. Thus, authors, journals, and institutions have the same obligation to prevent violations. With this procedure, it is hoped that the editorial can carry out the necessary actions based on the evaluation results, such as revisions and corrections, revocation with replacement, and revocation of articles.


3. Ethical Guidelines for Publishers and Editors

Journal of Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) implements building blocks in developing a coherent and respectful knowledge network in carrying out the publication of articles. This is a direct effort of the quality of the author's work and the institutions that support the author. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the right scientific method (double-blink method). Therefore, it is very important to agree on ethical behaviour standards expected of all parties involved in publishing (authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public). Chakra Brahmanda Lantera Institute as a journal publisher, will maintain all stages of publishing and is aware of ethical and other responsibilities. The JANH is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Policies include how to handle allegations from whistleblowers. The JANH editors have mechanisms for receiving and responding to research, publication, and review misconduct allegations. It is the journal editor's responsibility to define the types of misconduct for their journals and outline policies and procedures for handling such issues when they arise. Contact persons to handle misconduct allegations, and ethics issues, review allegations, and initiate impartial and confidential investigations of cases can email Chakra Brahmanda Lentera Institute ( to handle allegations made by whistleblowers.

  • Allegations of misconduct (Core Practice [CCP 1]: The JANH has a clear process procedure for handling allegations of misconduct, the JANH takes seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Publication misconduct includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission/multiple submissions, overlapping publication, and salami publication. Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under a peer-review process.
  • Conflicts of interest/Competing interests (Core Practice [CCP 4]: The JANH clearly defines conflicts of interest and processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers, whether identified before or after publication. Conflicts of interest are situations that can potentially influence people’s judgments. The JANH has clear, consistent, and well-publicized policies on conflicts of interest, including mandatory disclosure of study funding and the funder's role (conflict of interest). The editors ensure that there is no conflict of interest, and submitted and unpublished articles may not be used in research or published for the benefit of the editors without the author's written consent.
  • Data and reproducibility (Core Practice [CCP 5]): The JANH has included data availability policies and encourages reporting. Guidelines and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in the researcher discipline. Research is increasingly expected to enhance reporting by registering clinical trials, using standardized guidelines, and sharing associated data, code, and materials. Cooperative practices are needed between journal editors and institutional oversight bodies regarding alleged data fabrication and falsification. Consider developing and implementing processes and guidelines on the following: 1) data sharing is encouraged or mandated when exceptions are allowed, and if a data availability statement is needed, 2) data should be cited, 3) sharing/uploading anonymized data on a specific online repository or website, handling confidential data, registering clinical trials, using reporting guidelines, and requiring the submission of relevant reporting checklists.
  • Ethical oversight (Core Practice [CPP6]): Ethical oversight includes policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data, and ethical business/marketing practices. The JANH adopts and publishes clear guidelines regarding the ethical conduct of research. Regulations and norms of the journal’s discipline be consulted to ensure that the journal policies reflect those standards. The JANH diligently reviews submitted work to ensure it conforms to research ethics guidelines.

Consider implementing processes on the following:

    1. Recommended practices for handling issues such as informed consent, institutional oversight, prior ethics approval, and compliance with international research guidelines,
    2. Investigating concerns raised about the ethics of any study that has been published,
    3. Preventing potential cases of misconduct. The JANH routines for checking for plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, peer review manipulation, and authorship misconduct.
  • Intellectual property (Core Practice [CPP7]): All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, be clearly described (Copyright Notice). The JANH has obvious costs associated with publishing (publication charges) to authors and readers. The JANH has Policies to be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration (Peer Review Process/ Policy). The JANH have a policy about plagiarism, and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified (Policy of Screening For Plagiarism). Intellectual property laws, such as copyright, give authors certain rights of control and exclusivity over the products of their research. The JANH properly addresses those rights while obtaining permission to publish an author’s work. The JANH requires authors to sign agreements transferring copyright to the publisher. In open-access publishing, the JANH may allow authors to retain copyright and grant a publishing license or one of several Creative Commons licenses for reuse (License Police). The JANH allows authors to upload the final publication to be uploaded in another repository.
  • Journal Management (Core Practice [CPP8]): The JANH has A well-described and implemented infrastructure that is essential, including policies, processes, and software for the efficient running of an editorially independent journal, as well as the efficient management and training of editorial boards and editorial and publishing staff. The key element of ethical journal management is transparency. The JANH has a unique name; the website identifies the publisher, owner, and governing body and shows print and/or online ISSNs, full journal contact details, publication frequency, peer review model, and a clear aims and scope statement.

The JANH ensures ethical and efficient management with:

    1. The website is not misleading, shows names and affiliations of all editorial board members, and documents how editors/reviewers are selected and trained,
    2. There is transparent ownership, revenue sources, and advertising policies/practices are independent of editorial decisions,
    3. Suitable software is used to increase office efficiency, and a suitable online platform is used to backup/archive journal content and
    4. Any direct marketing is done ethically.
  • Post-publication discussions and corrections (Core Practice [CPP10]): The JANH allows debate post-publication either on the author site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. The JANH has mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication. The JANH has in place methods to correct the literature after content publication (Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern). Some form of post-publication commentary or discussion is allowed when alternative interpretations of published data are brought to light. The JANH has Considered implementing processes about systems for post-publication discussion, correction, and retraction and systems to correct papers that are not so seriously flawed as to warrant retraction (e.g., expressions of concern, editorial note). The JANH) accepts discussion and correction of articles published by readers. Readers may contact the Chief Editor by email for discussion and corrections. If accepted (by the editor-in-chief), discussions and corrections will be published in the next edition as a Letter to the Editor. The respective authors can respond to discussions and corrections from readers by sending their replies to the editor-in-chief. Therefore, the editor may publish an answer such as a Letter Reply to the Editor.
  • Publication Decisions. The JANH editor has the task of deciding which articles can be continued and sent to reviewers or for publication. Other editorial teams assist editors in carrying out their duties, such as possible article infringement, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editorial team consults with the Chief editor or other reviewers to decide.
  • Complaints and Appeals: The JANH have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to respected personnel with respect to the case complaint. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal business process, i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guidelines. The complaint cases should be sent by email to
  • Fair Play: Editors implement and evaluate articles to improve the quality of their intellectual content regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.
  • Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff may not publish any information about the author or submitted manuscripts to reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and publishers to anyone other than the author concerned.
  • Reviews of Manuscripts: Every article submitted to JANH must be evaluated for authenticity by the editor through a plagiarism check. Editors must regulate and use peer review fairly and sensibly, explaining their peer-review process in the information provided to authors. The editor uses peer reviewers according to the focus and scope, considers the peer reviewer's area of expertise, and avoids conflict of interest.

The procedure for the application and management of complaints and Appeals of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence and in the following manner:

  1. The journal's editorial office receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct (
  2. The complainant must clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted, and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
  3. The editorial office will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
  4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to explain with factual statements and any available evidence.
  5. Suppose the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint. In that case, the editorial office will take the following actions depending on the situation: 1) If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description. 2) If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
  6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
  7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

4. Guidelines For Promptly Responding to Suspected Ethical Breaches By Authors, Reviewers, And Editors

Complaints and appeals (Core Practice [CPP10]): The JANH has a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, staff, editorial board, or publisher. Complaints may arise over the conduct of editors and/or peer reviewers (e.g., breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or misuse of privileged information), or they may arise from disputes about substantive decisions, such as retractions. Still others may be more administrative in nature (e.g., irregularities in editorial processes or complaints that journal staff are unresponsive). The JANH responding to suspected ethical breeches and in addition, consider the following:

    1. Designating a contact person for ethics inquiries and appeals/complaints (,
    2. Editorial offices focus on promptly correcting the literature but request authors’ institutions or employers/funding agencies to investigate and follow up on author misconduct and discipline,
    3. The JANH has a process for author appeals against editorial decisions,
    4. The JANH has processes to investigate and manage editor, reviewer, or staff misconduct (e.g., undeclared conflicts of interest)
    5. The JANH can contact other journals or contact institutions (of authors, editors, reviewers) and seek independent and legal advice


Copy Editor

The Copy Editor is responsible for the validity of grammar, writing style, bibliography, references, and conformity with the Applied Nursing and Health (JANH) Journal template.


Layout Editor

The Layout Editor is responsible for managing the appearance of journal articles to be published, relating to setting the layout and image format and converting article formats.


Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

The journal's intellectual property or copyright policy follows the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-SA.



Journal policy about intellectual property or copyright is declared here:


Peer-Review Process Policy

Peer-Review process/policy is declared here: