Editorial Policies
- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Plagiarism Policy
- Article Proccessing Charge
- Payment
- References Management
- Publication Ethics
- Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL)
- Indexed by
- Licenses
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
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Review
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Case Report
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.
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
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...
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.
Article Proccessing Charge
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.
Licenses
Please find the licenses in Magna Medika: Berkala Ilmiah Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. By submitting the article/manuscript of the article, the author(s) agree with this policy.
The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.