Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education/JPKI accepts and publishes research and review articles in medical and health professions education in Indonesia, South East Asia and also beyond. We accept publication in English to widen the dissemination of the articles and also in Bahasa Indonesia to ensure that the articles are well-disseminated and easily adapted to the practice of remote/local health professions education institution in Indonesia. Research articles may include empiric research, surveys, case studies, experimental studies, document analysis and historical study. In addition, review articles may incorporate meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews and other theoretical reviews which synthesise and adapt available theories into certain contexts. The themes may include:

  • Teaching-learning innovation
  • Module and curriculum development
  • Teaching-learning process
  • How people learn in medical and health professions education
  • Learning environment
  • Management of higher education in medicine and health professions
  • Skills laboratory and skills training/teaching
  • Clinical teaching and academic hospitals
  • Learning resource
  • Assessment of students’ learning
  • Evaluation of educational programme
  • Ethics and professionalism

 

Section Policies

Editorial

This section is only for editors

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Articles

This section is only for editors

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Study

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Learning Media Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

I AM HPE Recommendation

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education applies a double-blind review system in which the author and reviewers do not recognise each other, and their identity is maintained to be confidential. Reviewers are obliged to declare when they found that the article that they are assigned might have any potential conflict of interest. We attempt to complete the article review and processing in 8-10 weeks after submission. The submitted articles will undergo screening and review processes below:

 

  1. Author’s submission
  2. Technical check by administrator (i.e., supporting document completeness)
  3. Editorial consideration after the technical check (i.e., writing style, formatting style, referencing, topic appropriateness, plagiarism check), decision:
    • Pass/Appropriate, then go to step 4 (letter of submission to be issued)
    • Fail/Inappropriate, then REJECTED, to be revised and re-submit (letter of rejection including revision suggestions to be issued) OR final rejection  (letter of permanent rejection to be issued)
  4. First Round Peer Review, double-blind (i.e., the appointment of two reviewers by the section editor, review process and results in the levels of criteria). Peer review results:
    • Both reviewers recommend for rejection (level 5), then go to step 5a
    • Both reviewers recommend for acceptance with major (level 4) or minor (level 3) revision, then go to step 5b
    • Both reviewers recommend for acceptance with revision by editors (level 2) or without revision (level 1), then go to step 5c
    • Conflicting recommendations, one reviewer suggests for level 3-4 acceptance, and the other suggests for level 1-2 acceptance, then go to step 5d
    • Conflicting recommendations, one reviewer suggests for rejection (level 5), and the other suggests for acceptance (level 1-4), then go to step 5e
  5. Editorial consideration after review, decision:
    • Submission is rejected (letter of permanent rejection to be issued, including reviewers’ and editor’s suggestions)
    • Submission is sent back to the author (letter of revision request to be issued, including reviewers’ and editor’s suggestions)
    • Submission is accepted for publication (letter of acceptance to be issued, the corresponding author to fulfil all administrative requirements), then go to step 7
    • Editorial board’s discretion and decision à to be sent back to the author (letter of revision request to be issued, including reviewers’ and editor’s suggestions) OR to be accepted for publication (letter of acceptance to be issued, corresponding author to fulfil all administrative requirements), then go to step 7
    • Editorial board’s discretion and decision à to be assigned to a third reviewer (go to step 6) OR to be sent back to the author for revision with editor’s suggestion (letter of revision request to be issued, including reviewers’ and editor’s suggestions)
  6. Second Round Peer Review, by a third reviewer, results:
    • A third reviewer recommends for rejection (level 5), then go to step 5a
    • A third reviewer recommends for acceptance (level 1-4), then go to step 5d
  7. Lay-outing by the editorial team
  8. Proofreading by the corresponding author
  9. Article final lay-outing and finalisation
  10. Article to be published

 

Publication Frequency

The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education/JPKI publishes three issues annually in March, July and November with each number containing 8 - 10 articles.

 

Open Access Policy

The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education applies an open-access policy. Readers are allowed to access the online published article for free. This is to support the dissemination of articles to all areas in Indonesia and globally.

 

Publication Ethics

As a peer-reviwed journal, this statement clarifies ethical conduct to all parties involved in manuscript publication Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education, including the author(s), editors (editor-in chief and associate editor), and the peer-reviewer. This statement is relied on Practice Guidelines for publication as in Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE’s Best).

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standars: 
    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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
  2. 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.
  3. Originality and Plagiaris: 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.
  4. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

  1. Fair Play: 
    An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Publication Decisions: 
    The editor board journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: 
    Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. Standards of Objectivity: 
    Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: 
    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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 

 

Screening Plagiarism

The manuscript submitted to this journal will be screened for plagiarism using Grammarly Premium

 

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download using ALM Plugin, statistic will show on every article page.

ex. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jpki/article/view/25295

 

Review Guidelines

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is the good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequately or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or resulted so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
  5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

 Full Review Process of Manuscript

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organisation?
  2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced,
  3. Eliminated/expanded/added?
  4. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
  5. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
  6. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
  7. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.