- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Abstracting & Indexing
- Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
- Review Guidelines
Focus and Scope
Media Keperawatan Indonesia is intended to be the university journal for publishing articles reporting the results of research in nursing. Media Keperawatan Indonesia invites manuscripts in the areas of medical-surgical nursing, emergency and disaster nursing, critical nursing, pediatric nursing, maternity nursing, mental health nursing, gerontological nursing, community health nursing, management and leadership nursing.
Section Policies
Research Articles
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Review Articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
-
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Policy
Media Keperawatan Indonesia applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure a fair, objective, and transparent evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
In the double-blind review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to minimize potential bias and maintain academic integrity.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous editorial and peer-review process before they can be considered for publication.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements.
During this stage, the editorial team assesses:
- relevance to the journal's scope
- originality and novelty of the research
- compliance with the journal's author guidelines
- adherence to ethical standards
- plagiarism screening results
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or quality standards may be rejected without external review.
Assignment to Section Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a section editor or handling editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic.
The editor evaluates the manuscript and selects independent reviewers with appropriate academic expertise.
Selection of Reviewers
Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two to three independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of nursing or health sciences.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- academic qualifications
- research expertise
- previous publication record
- absence of conflicts of interest
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and adhere to ethical review practices.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- originality and significance of the research
- methodological rigor
- clarity of research objectives
- quality of data analysis
- validity of conclusions
- relevance to nursing practice and health sciences
- clarity of presentation and structure
Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations to improve the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
Authors receiving revision decisions are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewer comments.
Final Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revised manuscript.
The editorial board reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet the scientific or ethical standards of the journal.
Publication Frequency
Media Keperawatan Indonesia has published ten articles in each issue and four issues in a year (March, June, September, and December) since volume 4 No 1, 2021.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global knowledge exchange.
This is an open-access journal, meaning that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full-text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative
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...
Abstracting & Indexing
Media Keperawatan Indonesia is Indexed in Reputable Databases
Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI) is abstracted and indexed in several national and international databases to increase the visibility, accessibility, dissemination, and scholarly impact of published articles.
Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI) is committed to maintaining the integrity, originality, and ethical standards of all published articles. All manuscripts submitted to MKI must be original works, have not been published previously, and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Plagiarism Screening Process
Every manuscript submitted to MKI will be screened for plagiarism before being sent to the peer-review process. The editorial team uses plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin, iThenticate, or other similarity-checking tools approved by the editorial office.
The plagiarism screening process is conducted to identify possible text similarity, improper citation, duplicate publication, redundant publication, self-plagiarism, and other forms of academic misconduct. The similarity report is reviewed carefully by the editorial team. The similarity percentage is not used as the only basis for editorial decisions; the editor will also evaluate the source of similarity, citation accuracy, paraphrasing quality, and the context of the matched text.
Similarity Index Threshold
MKI applies the following similarity index policy:
Manuscripts with a similarity index of 25% or below may proceed to the editorial evaluation and peer-review process, provided that the similarity does not indicate plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical text reuse.
Manuscripts with a similarity index above 25% will be returned to the author for revision before further editorial evaluation.
Manuscripts with a high similarity index, extensive unattributed copying, duplicate publication, or substantial overlap with previously published works may be rejected without peer review.
Similarity found in references, bibliography, affiliations, ethics statements, standard methodological terms, and properly cited quotations may be excluded from editorial consideration, depending on the context.
Forms of Plagiarism
MKI considers the following practices as plagiarism or unethical text reuse:
Copying text, data, tables, figures, or ideas from other sources without proper citation.
Using another author’s work, concepts, or findings without appropriate acknowledgment.
Paraphrasing substantial parts of another work without proper citation.
Submitting a manuscript that has been published or is being reviewed by another journal.
Reusing substantial parts of the author’s own previously published work without proper citation or clear justification.
Manipulating, fabricating, or falsifying citations, data, or sources.
Editorial Actions
If plagiarism or unethical similarity is detected, the editorial team may take one or more of the following actions:
Return the manuscript to the author for revision and clarification.
Request the author to correct citations, improve paraphrasing, or revise overlapping sections.
Reject the manuscript before peer review.
Reject the manuscript after editorial or reviewer evaluation.
Contact the author’s institution if serious publication misconduct is identified.
Retract the article if plagiarism is discovered after publication.
Author Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original, properly cited, and free from plagiarism. Authors are strongly encouraged to check the similarity of their manuscript before submission. Authors must also disclose any related, overlapping, or previously published work that may be relevant to the submitted manuscript.
By submitting a manuscript to Media Keperawatan Indonesia, the authors agree that the manuscript may be screened for plagiarism and that the editorial team has the authority to take appropriate action based on the similarity report and editorial assessment.
Post-Publication Plagiarism
If plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical text reuse is discovered after publication, MKI will investigate the case in accordance with publication ethics principles. Depending on the severity of the case, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
Review Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Media Keperawatan Indonesia provides these guidelines to support reviewers in conducting fair, objective, constructive, and confidential peer review through the journal’s online submission system.
Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, originality, and scientific relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining scholarly standards and helping authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.
1. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of submitted manuscripts. The purpose of peer review is to help editors make appropriate editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, and scientific contribution of their manuscripts.
Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:
- fits the aims and scope of MKI;
- provides a clear contribution to nursing or health sciences;
- demonstrates originality and novelty;
- uses an appropriate and rigorous methodology;
- presents findings clearly and accurately;
- discusses findings in relation to relevant literature;
- follows ethical standards in research and publication;
- is written clearly and logically;
- uses relevant and current references;
- provides implications for nursing science, clinical practice, nursing education, nursing management, health policy, or future research.
2. Confidentiality
All manuscripts sent to reviewers are confidential documents. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.
Reviewers must not:
- share the manuscript with others;
- discuss the manuscript with colleagues without permission from the editor;
- use data, ideas, methods, or findings from the manuscript for personal advantage;
- contact the authors directly;
- disclose any information about the manuscript or the review process.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
MKI uses a double-blind peer review process. Authors do not know the identity of reviewers, and reviewers should not know the identity of authors.
Reviewers must respect this process and should not attempt to identify the authors. If reviewers identify the authors from the manuscript content, file properties, self-citation, research location, acknowledgement, or other information, they should inform the editor immediately.
4. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must decline the review invitation if they have a conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity.
Potential conflicts of interest include:
- recent collaboration with the authors;
- working at the same institution as the authors;
- personal, academic, financial, or professional relationships with the authors;
- direct academic competition with the authors;
- involvement in the same research project;
- any condition that may influence impartial judgment.
5. Timeliness
Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they are able to complete the review within the required timeline. The standard review period is usually 2–4 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and editorial policy.
If reviewers need additional time, they should inform the editor as soon as possible. If reviewers are unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editor can invite another reviewer.
6. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and should inform the editor if they suspect any problem related to research integrity or publication ethics.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect:
- plagiarism;
- duplicate publication;
- data fabrication or falsification;
- inappropriate image manipulation;
- unethical research procedures;
- absence of ethical approval where required;
- absence of informed consent where required;
- undisclosed conflict of interest;
- excessive self-citation;
- citation manipulation;
- authorship problems;
- breach of patient or participant confidentiality.
7. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Reviewers must maintain confidentiality during the peer review process.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, tables, figures, datasets, supplementary files, or any unpublished material from the manuscript into public generative artificial intelligence tools or other external platforms that may store, process, or reuse the content.
If reviewers use AI-assisted tools only to improve the language of their own review comments, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the review. AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s own scientific judgment.
8. General Evaluation Criteria
8.1 Relevance to Journal Scope
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript is relevant to MKI’s scope, including nursing science, clinical nursing practice, nursing management and leadership, nursing education, community health nursing, patient safety, evidence-based care, and health service improvement.
8.2 Originality and Novelty
Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript presents new findings, new perspectives, methodological contribution, theoretical contribution, or practical relevance.
8.3 Scientific Contribution
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript has a meaningful contribution to nursing science, clinical practice, nursing education, nursing management, community health nursing, patient safety, health services, health policy, or future research.
8.4 Methodological Quality
Reviewers should evaluate whether the study design, sample, instruments, procedures, data collection, and data analysis are appropriate and clearly described.
8.5 Ethical Compliance
Reviewers should check whether the manuscript includes appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, confidentiality protection, and research integrity statements.
8.6 Clarity and Readability
Reviewers should assess whether the results, discussion, conclusion, references, tables, figures, and overall writing are clear, logical, accurate, and scientifically readable.
9. Section-by-Section Review Guidance
9.1 Title
Reviewers should evaluate whether the title is clear, concise, written in English, relevant to the content, specific enough to reflect the study focus, and understandable to an international readership.
9.2 Abstract
Reviewers should assess whether the abstract is written in English and accurately summarizes the manuscript. The abstract should clearly present the background, objective, methods, results, and conclusion.
9.3 Keywords
Reviewers should assess whether the keywords are written in English, represent the main concepts of the manuscript, and support article discoverability.
9.4 Introduction
Reviewers should assess whether the introduction explains the importance of the problem, presents relevant current evidence, identifies a clear research gap, explains the novelty or contribution of the study, and ends with a clear objective.
9.5 Methods
The methods section should clearly describe:
- study design;
- setting and study period;
- population and sample;
- inclusion and exclusion criteria;
- sample size calculation, where applicable;
- sampling technique;
- variables or concepts;
- instruments and their validity or reliability;
- intervention or procedure, where applicable;
- data collection procedure;
- data analysis;
- ethical approval and informed consent.
For qualitative studies, reviewers should assess the appropriateness of the qualitative approach, participant recruitment, data collection, data saturation, data analysis, and trustworthiness.
For review articles, reviewers should assess the review question, databases, search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection, quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis method.
9.6 Results
Reviewers should assess whether the results are presented according to the study objectives. The results should be clear, accurate, logical, and supported by appropriate tables or figures.
9.7 Discussion
Reviewers should assess whether the discussion summarizes the main findings, explains their meaning, compares them with previous studies, provides theoretical or practical implications, explains the contribution to nursing or health sciences, and presents study strengths and limitations.
9.8 Conclusion
Reviewers should assess whether the conclusion answers the study objective, is supported by the findings, is concise and clear, avoids overgeneralization, and includes appropriate implications.
9.9 Tables and Figures
Reviewers should assess whether tables and figures are necessary, clear, readable, numbered consecutively, and supported by appropriate titles or captions. Tables and figures should not duplicate information unnecessarily.
9.10 References
Reviewers should assess whether references are relevant, current, adequate, and consistent with the journal reference style. The manuscript should include appropriate primary sources and DOI numbers where available.
10. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations through the OJS system.
| Recommendation | Meaning | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly written, ethically appropriate, and requires no substantive revision. | Use only when the manuscript is ready for publication with minimal editorial correction. |
| Minor Revision | The manuscript has scientific merit and may be accepted after minor improvements. | Use when only limited clarification, minor formatting, reference correction, or minor discussion improvement is needed. |
| Major Revision | The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication. | Use when there are major issues in research gap, method, results, discussion, ethical reporting, language, or references. |
| Resubmit for Review | The manuscript requires extensive revision and should be reviewed again after resubmission. | Use when the study has potential but the current manuscript is not sufficiently developed for a final decision. |
| Reject | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in MKI. | Use when the manuscript is outside scope, lacks originality, has serious methodological flaws, has ethical problems, or cannot be adequately evaluated. |
11. Submitting Review Results
Reviewers must submit their review results through the MKI online journal system.
11.1 Annotated Manuscript File
Reviewers may upload the manuscript file that has been reviewed and annotated.
The annotated manuscript may include:
- comments inserted directly in the manuscript;
- track changes;
- margin comments;
- notes on unclear sentences, methodological issues, tables, figures, references, or language problems.
When using an annotated manuscript, reviewers must ensure that their identity is not visible in the file properties, reviewer name, comment author name, or tracked changes metadata.
11.2 Review Comment File
Reviewers may upload a separate review comment file containing their evaluation of the manuscript.
The review comment file should include:
- brief summary of the manuscript;
- overall assessment;
- strengths of the manuscript;
- major comments;
- minor comments;
- recommendation for editorial decision;
- confidential comments to the editor, if any.
The review comment file should be written clearly, respectfully, and constructively. Reviewers may use Microsoft Word or another editable document format accepted by the journal system.
13. Writing Constructive Review Comments
Reviewer comments should be constructive, specific, respectful, and useful for both editors and authors.
Reviewers should:
- begin with a brief summary of the manuscript;
- identify the strengths of the manuscript;
- distinguish major comments from minor comments;
- explain concerns clearly;
- provide specific suggestions for improvement;
- refer to manuscript sections, pages, paragraphs, tables, or figures where possible;
- avoid personal criticism;
- avoid offensive or discriminatory language;
- ensure that the recommendation is consistent with the comments.
14. Examples of Constructive Review Comments
Example 1: Research Gap
Less helpful: The introduction is weak.
More helpful: The introduction presents the general topic, but the research gap is not clearly stated. Please explain what is already known, what remains unclear, and how this study contributes to nursing science or practice.
Example 2: Methods
Less helpful: The method is unclear.
More helpful: The sampling method and sample size calculation are not sufficiently described. Please explain how participants were selected, how the sample size was determined, and whether the sample was adequate for the study design.
Example 3: Discussion
Less helpful: The discussion needs improvement.
More helpful: The discussion repeats several results but does not sufficiently interpret the findings. Please compare the findings with recent studies, explain possible reasons for similarities or differences, and clarify the implications for nursing practice.
Example 4: Conclusion
Less helpful: The conclusion is too broad.
More helpful: The conclusion should be limited to findings supported by the study. Please avoid claims about national policy unless the data directly support such implications.
15. Specific Guidance by Manuscript Type
15.1 Original Research Article
Reviewers should assess whether the study has a clear objective, appropriate design, adequate sample, valid instruments, appropriate analysis, ethical approval, clear results, and meaningful contribution to nursing or health sciences.
15.2 Review Article
Reviewers should assess whether the review has a clear question, appropriate search strategy, transparent study selection process, critical appraisal where applicable, appropriate synthesis, and useful conclusions. Systematic reviews should follow PRISMA. Scoping reviews should follow PRISMA-ScR.
15.3 Case Study / Case Report
Reviewers should assess whether the case is unique, clinically relevant, ethically reported, and educational for nursing or health care practice. The manuscript should protect patient confidentiality and include informed consent where applicable.
15.4 Short Communication
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents concise, relevant, and scientifically meaningful information with clear implications.
16. Reporting Guidelines
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript follows appropriate reporting guidelines according to the study design.
| Study Type | Recommended Reporting Guideline |
|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | CONSORT |
| Observational study | STROBE |
| Qualitative study | COREQ or SRQR |
| Systematic review or meta-analysis | PRISMA |
| Scoping review | PRISMA-ScR |
| Case report | CARE |
| Quality improvement study | SQUIRE |
| Diagnostic accuracy study | STARD |
| Study protocol | SPIRIT or PRISMA-P |
| Clinical prediction model | TRIPOD |
Reviewers may recommend that authors submit the relevant reporting checklist if it is missing.
17. Removing Reviewer Identity from Uploaded Files
Because MKI applies double-blind peer review, reviewers should ensure that their identity is not visible in uploaded files.
Before uploading an annotated manuscript or review comment file, reviewers should check and remove:
- reviewer name in document properties;
- reviewer initials in comments;
- reviewer identity in tracked changes;
- institutional information;
- personal file names.
Reviewed_Manuscript.docx
Review_Comments.docx
Reviewers should avoid file names that contain their personal name or institution.
18. Final Checklist Before Submitting Review
Before submitting the review through OJS, reviewers should ensure that:
- the review is objective and constructive;
- the comments are specific and evidence-based;
- major and minor comments are clearly separated;
- ethical concerns are reported to the editor;
- confidential comments are placed appropriately;
- the recommendation matches the comments;
- the review does not contain offensive or personal language;
- the manuscript content remains confidential;
- the uploaded file does not reveal reviewer identity;
- the review file has been uploaded successfully through the OJS system.
19. Reviewer Acknowledgement
MKI appreciates the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality of scholarly publication. Reviewers who complete high-quality and timely reviews may be acknowledged by the journal, subject to journal policy and reviewer consent.
12. Suggested Structure for Review Comment File
Although MKI does not use a review form, reviewers are encouraged to organize their review comments using the following structure.
12.1 Manuscript Summary
Briefly summarize the topic, objective, method, and main findings of the manuscript.
This manuscript examines the relationship between nurse workload and patient safety incidents in hospital settings. The study uses a cross-sectional design and provides findings that may be relevant to nursing management and patient safety improvement.
12.2 General Assessment
Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript quality, relevance, originality, and contribution.
The topic is relevant to nursing management and patient safety. However, the manuscript requires substantial improvement in the explanation of the research gap, sampling method, instrument validity, and discussion of findings.
12.3 Strengths
Identify the positive aspects of the manuscript, such as:
12.4 Major Comments
Major comments should address substantive issues that must be improved before publication.
Major comments may relate to:
The introduction does not clearly identify the research gap. The authors should explain what is already known, what remains unclear, and how this study contributes to nursing science or practice.
12.5 Minor Comments
Minor comments should address smaller issues that improve clarity and presentation.
Minor comments may relate to:
Please define the abbreviation “LOS” at first mention in the abstract and main text.
12.6 Recommendation
Reviewers should provide one recommendation: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Resubmit for review, or Reject. The recommendation should be consistent with the review comments.
12.7 Confidential Comments to the Editor
If needed, reviewers may add confidential comments for the editor. Confidential comments may include concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical problems, conflict of interest, suspected author identity, or serious methodological concerns.