e-Journal Pustaka Kesehatan (JPK) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. This statement elucidates the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the principal editor, editorial board members, reviewers­­­­­, and authors. This statement adheres to COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. This journal has a primary responsibility to publish original work of value to the intellectual community in the best possible form and the highest possible standards, with an expectation of similar standards from our reviewers and authors. Honesty, originality, and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve our goal. This journal is committed to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions and providing a legal review if necessary.


Reporting Standards:
The author who wrote the research report must present an accurate report of the work that has been done and discuss the purpose of the significance of the study. The underlying data should be accurately described in the draft of the research report. The research report should contain enough details and references to enable others to imitate the work. Reports containing fraud or deliberate inaccurate data are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Originality and Plagiarism:
The authors must ensure that the written works are fully original and if the author uses the work and/or sentence of another person then must use the citation or quote correctly.

Double publishing or content similarity:
A writer should not publish a manuscript that describes the same research essence in more than one journal or publisher. Sending the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Recognition Source:
Appropriate recognition of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications or ideas that are influential in determining the nature of the work reported.

Report compilers:
The authors' names should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of reported research. Anyone who has contributed significantly should be listed as a co-author. Parties who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project must be recognized or registered as contributors. The lead author must ensure that the co-authors whose names are included in the report are truly eligible for inclusion and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the report and have agreed to publish the report.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
All authors should disclose in the report script any financial conflicts or substantive conflicts of interest that may be expected to affect the results or interpretation of the report text.

Fundamental mistakes in published works:
When the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the published work, the author is obliged to immediately notify the journal or publisher-editor and work with the editor to retract or refine the work.

Risk and Human or Animal as Subject:
If the study involves humans, animals or other living things and used chemicals, procedures, or equipment at high risk of use to the subject of the research, the authors should have ethical clearance from the ethical committee.

Fair Play:
The editor always evaluates the intellectual content of the manuscript irrespective of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about the manuscript submitted to anyone other than potential authors, reviewers, reviewers, editorial advisers, and publishers.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
Unpublished material but mentioned in a submitted manuscript should not be used by a personal research editor without the written consent of the author.

Decision of Publication:
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for deciding on articles to be published. Editors may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal and limited by legal provisions such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can negotiate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Review of Manuscripts:
The editor must ensure that any initial manuscript has been evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should manage and use peer review fairly and wisely. The editor should explain the peer review process in informing the author and indicate which parts of the journal are reviewed. The editor must use appropriate peer reviewers for the publication script by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding people with conflicts of interest.

Contribution to Editorial Decision:
Peer review helps editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with authors can also assist authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Any reviewer who is selected but feels ineligible to review the research reported in the script or knows that a quick review is impossible should then notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Standard Objectivity:
Review must be done objectively. The personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Any submitted manuscript for review should be a confidential document. Scripts should not be displayed or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
Important information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers are prohibited to associate manuscripts with conflicts of interest caused by competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and any connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the report text.

Recognition Source:
The reviewer must identify the published works that are relevant but not yet quoted by the author. A statement that previous observations, derivations, or arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also increase the editor's attention on substantial or overlapping equality between the reviewed script and any other publication of other papers they know.