Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Magna Medika is a medical journal of APKKM contains papers and scientific articles created as a form of realization Tridharma college.

The journal is published every six months, February and August of three sections in the form of:

- Research article

- Case report

- Literature review

The scope of this journal is all the field of medicine such as:

  • Internal medicine (including Pulmonary medicine and cardiovascular medicine)
  • Surgery (including urology, orthopaedic and traumatologic, plastic surgery, neurosurgery)
  • Anesthesia and Emergency Medicine
  • Neurology
  • Dermatology
  • Obstetric and Gynecologic
  • Forensic and Medicolegal
  • Clinical Pathology
  • Anatomical Pathology
  • Psychiatric
  • Ophthalmology
  • Otolaryngology
  • Pediatric
  • Radiology
  • Microbiology and parasitology
  • Basic Science of Medicine (including biochemistry, physiology, anatomy and Histology)
  • Public health and Health Management
  • Medical Education
  • Islamic Medicine

Magna Medika has already registered in LIPI and has ISSN as follows:

p-ISSN: 2407-0505

e-ISSN: 2774-2318

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a Turnitin software.

 

The research article submitted to this journal will be double blind reviewed at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.

 

Final decision of articles acceptance will be made by Editors according to reviewers comments. Publication of accepted articles including the sequence of published articles will be made by Editor in Chief by considering sequence of accepted date and geographical distribution of authors as well as thematic issue.

 

Type of Decision

There are four types of editorial decisions during the peer review process, which are:

Decline submission | Resubmit for review | Revison Required | Accept submission


Decline submission

Following peer review, the paper is judged not to be acceptable for publication in Magna Medika and resubmission is not possible.

Resubmit for Review

The submitted version of the paper is not acceptable and requires major revision, but there is clear potential in the work, and Magna Medika is prepared to consider a new version. Authors are offered the opportunity to resubmit their paper as a new submission. Concerns will remain regarding the suitability of the paper for publication until the editors are convinced by the authors that their paper fits the scope and standards of Magna Medika. The resubmitted manuscript will be returned to the original associate editor if at all possible.

Revision Required

The paper requires changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to modify their manuscript in light of comments received from referees and editors and to submit a new version for consideration within 2 weeks of receiving the decision letter. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed must be supplied with the revised version of the paper. Revisions may undergo further peer review and papers may undergo more than one round of revision. If the authors do not revise their papers to the satisfaction of the editors, the paper can still be declined from publication in Magna Medika.

Accept submission

The paper is accepted for publication, subject to conditions that need to be addressed in producing a final version of the manuscript. These may include sub-editing changes and the minor amendment to ensure the paper fully matches our criteria. After final checking in the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed and the paper is forwarded to the publishers for publication.

Galley proof

Page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for final checking. Corrections to the proofs must be restricted to printer’s errors: any other changes to the text, in equations or grammar, may be charged to the author. Proofs should be returned to the editors within three days of receipt to minimize the risk of the author’s contribution having to be held over to a later issue. The editors do not accept responsibility for the correctness of published content. It is the author’s responsibility to check the content at the proof stage. 

 

Magna Medika Editorial and publishing process

Magna Medika follow the editorial and publishing process set by PKP, as presented in the following figure.

 

Publication Frequency

Magna Medika will be published two times a year at the end of February and August yearly

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Benefits of open access for the author, include:

  • Free access for all users worldwide
  • Increased visibility and readership
  • Rapid publication
  • No spatial constraints

 

Archiving

Digital Preservation Policy

Deposit Policy

The pre-print, post-print, and publisher's version/PDF can be archived under the following conditions.

As soon as the MAGNA MEDIKA: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan has published an article, the version of the article that has been submitted, accepted for publication, and the printed version can be used for a variety of scholarly or academic purposes under Attribution-Non Comercial-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Author(s) may deposit and use the document as follows:

  • on the personal website
  • on the company or institutional repository
  • on subject repositories
  • with individuals requesting personal use for teaching and training within the author's institution, and as part of an author's grant applications or theses/doctorate submissions.

Authors may post the version of the article that was submitted to the journal (pre-print) to the above resources, at any time. Please make sure that you consult our policies on the website to prevent any disputes or doubts.

 

Archiving

The MAGNA MEDIKA: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan stores back issues and current articles following LOCKSS's  idea of keeping lots of copies of our items on several servers to keep them safe (LOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit). Our Archives are stored and digitally submitted to Indonesian National Library's Indonesia One Search, Internet Archive  and periodically harvested by the BASE, Crossref, OCLC WorldCat, and Dimensions.

The MAGNA MEDIKA: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan also implementing the PKP Private LOCKSS Network (PLN) preservation function (A list of journal issues  preserved in the PKP PN). The MAGNA MEDIKA: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan allows authors to deposit the pre-print, post-print, and published PDF version, as stated in the Deposit Policy section.

For further information about the Magna Medika: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan journal digital preservation policy, please contact.

 

Plagiarism Policy

All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using a Turnitin software. Maximum threshold of similarity check is 20%.

If the plagiarism check is over 20%, the manuscript will be rejected. The author must paraphrase at first then resubmit.

 

Article Proccessing Charge

Every article submitted to Magna Medika: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan will not have any 'Article Processing Charges'. This includes submitting, peer-reviewing, editing, publishing, maintaining and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full text versions of the articles

 

Payment

By not overlooking the Magna Medika copyright ownership and the legal formal aspect of the journal, any article published in this open access journal can be downloaded for free. No payment is charged.

 

References Management

Every article submitted to Magna Medika shall use reference management software e.g. Mendeley or Zotero

 

Publication Ethics

Our Publication Ethics are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.


Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards: 

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

Originality and Plagiarism: 

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: 

Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced

Acknowledgement of Sources: 

Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Authorship of the Paper: 

The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

All authors should clearly 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: 

If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 

The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Duties of Editor

Publication Decisions: 

Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

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.

Fair Play: 

The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality: 

The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

Duties of Reviewers

Confidentiality: 

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Acknowledgement of Sources: 

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

Standards of Objectivity: 

Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work

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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Promptness: 

The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

 

Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL)

Before you submit your manuscript, it is highly recommended for you to pre-evaluate it using Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL), an instrument that we developed to help you get effective time of peer-reviewing process.

Pre-Evaluation Criteria

 

Strong

(Level 1)

Fair

(level 2)

Poor

(level 3)

Title: Straightforward, informative, and represents the contents of the article.

 

5

3

2

Abstract: Concise but at least contain the problem, purpose, method, important findings, and implications of the research.

 

10

5

2

Keywords: Searchable by search engine, truly represents the intention of research. Don’t use phrases, only words. 5 to 6 keyword is recommended.

 

5

3

2

Introduction: Directing the reader about the importance of the research. Presenting significant problems, a clear state of the art, gap analysis, and novel concepts to fill the gaps. End it with the purpose of research. 

 

15

10

5

Method: Clear and replicable. Reveals how research objectives are achieved with the appropriate tools, procedures, and stages.

 

10

5

2

Results: Presenting experimental or survey data, or any other kind of data depending on the type of research. The results are generally presented in clear and readable tables and figures.

 

15

10

5

Discussion: Meaningful. Good discussion is written as a dialogue that reveals the progress of the research in comparison to previous researches.

 

20

15

5

Conclusion: Contains a summary of research results (the most important research finding) that relates with the objectives written in the introduction.

 

10

4

1

References: Accountable, about 80% of the literatures from primary sources (reputable journals) and up to date (last 10 years). Use reference management tools.

 

10

5

1

Total score

 

100

60

25

Decision matrix

Score

Probability

85-100

Most likely to be published with little discussion with Editor/Reviewer

70-84

Possible minor revision (if there are no mistakes in principle)

50-69

Possible major revision

25-49

Most likely to be rejected in the first stage

Disclaimer: The Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) above is used by authors as a “tool” to optimize peer-reviewing process. The decision to accept or reject an article for publication in Magna Medika is the authority of Editor based on recommendations from reviewers.