Publication Ethics

Journal Of Nursing Education & Practice (JNEP) is a peer-reviewed electronic international journal. This statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer­ and the publisher Mitra Publikasi Ilmiah. This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions

The editor of the JNEP journal is 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

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. 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.

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5. 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.

6. 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

1. 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.

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 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.

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 behavior 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 others 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 in 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. 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 identify these in the manuscript.

8. 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.

9. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct refers to falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and its writing or reporting of research results. If authors are found to be involved in 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 alleged misconduct, editors and editorial boards will use COPE best practices and Allegations of research misconduct, falsification, and falsification by Elsevier to help them resolve any complaints and address such violations fairly. This will include an investigation into allegations made by the editor. Manuscripts submitted and found to contain such infringements will be rejected. When a published paper contains such violations, a retraction will be published and linked to the original article.

The first step in the process involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This also includes determining whether the individual alleging wrongdoing has a relevant conflict of interest.

If there is a possibility of scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities, the allegation will be conveyed to the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all co-authors, will be asked to provide a detailed response. After responses have been received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be required. For cases where infringement is unlikely, clarification, additional analysis, or both, published in the form of a letter to the editor, and often including notices of correction and corrections to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to carry out appropriate and thorough investigations into alleged scientific violations. Ultimately, authors, journals and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of scientific records. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of those concerns, such as correction, retraction with replacement, or retraction, JNEP: Journal of Nursing Education and Practice will continue to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

An explanation of Alleged Research Mistakes following the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE), and Alleged Research Mistakes, falsification and falsification by Elsevier, can be accessed here.


Papers published in JNEP: Journal of Nursing Education and Practice will be considered for retraction if:

  1. There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either due to error (e.g. falsification of data) or honest error (e.g. calculation error or experimental error)
  2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., a case of over-publication)
  3. They constitute plagiarism
  4. They involve unethical research

The revocation mechanism follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Revocation Guidelines which can be accessed here.