Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

The Indonesian Cardiovascular Archive Journal in every article publication follows the Code of Conduct Publication Code (COPE) which aims to comply with the best ethical guidelines and follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in editing and publishing medical scientific articles.

Important task descriptions are described below, but still refer to the documents listed in the medical journal guidelines, namely as follows in full details.

Editor's Duties

Fair treatment and editorial independence.

Editors evaluate manuscripts submitted exclusively based on academic suitability (interests, originality, study validity, clarity) and their relevance to journal coverage, regardless of the author's race, gender,  ethnic origin, nationality, religious beliefs, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The decision to edit and publish is not determined by government policy or other institutions outside the journal itself. Our Editorial Board has full authority over the overall editorial content of the journal and the time of publication of the content.


The editor and editorial staff will not disclose any information about the manuscript that is sent to anyone other than the author, the reviewers, the potential reviewers, the editorial advisor, and the appropriate publisher.

Disclosure statement of conflicts of interest

Chief editor and editorial members will not use unpublished information disclosed in the

submission for the purpose of their research without the written consent of the author. Special information or ideas obtained by the editor because the handling of the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal benefit.

Editor will consider manuscripts with conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative relationship, or other relationship between editor(s) and the writer, company or institution associated with the research. In such a case, Editor will ask other members of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Decision of publication

The editors ensure that all submitted articles are considered for publication through peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in this field. The Editor in Chief, the Executive Editor, and the Task Editor are responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, the interests of researchers and readers, comments from reviewers, and legal requirements such as those currently in force relating to defamation, infringement of copyright and plagiarism. These three editors can talk with editors and other sustainable partners to make this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editor (together with the publisher and / or the public) will take responsive action when ethical issues are raised in connection with the submitted paper or published paper. Any act of unethical publication behavior will be reviewed, even if discovered several years after publication. The editor follows the COPE Flowchart when handling cases of alleged mis-conduct. If in the investigation, we find reasonable the ethical problem; correction, retraction, expression of concern or other notes that may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Duties of Scientific Reviewers

Contribute to editorial decisions

Peer reviews help editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, can help authors improve their manuscripts. Peer review is an important component of formal scientific communication and lies at the core of scientific work. All scientists who wish to contribute to the scientific process are obliged to conduct a fair scientific review.


Every invited reviewer who feels ineligible to review the research reported in the manuscript, or unable to give a short review on the manuscript, should immediately notify the editor and reject a review invitation so that alternative scientific reviewer can be contacted to substitute his/ her role in the peer review process.


Every manuscript accepted to be reviewed is a confidential document and must be approved as such. The manuscript is supposed not to be shown or discussed with other people unless authorized by the Chief Editor. This rule is also applied to scientific reviewer(s) who refuse to review manuscript.

Standard of Objectivity

Reviews must be carried out objectively, and evaluations are clearly formulated with supporting arguments so that the author will be able to use them in manuscript revision.

Source recognition

Scientific reviewer(s) have to inform relevant publication(s) that have not been cited by the author, if the reviewer consider the publication(s) have to be cited by the author.

Expression conflict of interest

Every scientific reviewer who have possible conflict of interest due to institutional and/ or familial relation with the author(s), companies or institutions related to manuscripts and the  work explained in the manuscript should immediately inform editors about the potential conflict of interest and state his/ her refusal to review such a manuscript.  In such a case, editors will substitute him/ her with the other reviewer(s) who have no conflict of interest.

Unpublished manuscript (manuscript that have been refused to be published) or material in such unpublished manuscript may not be used in reviewer’s article or any other paper work without the courtesy of the author. Information or special opinions obtained through peer reviews must be kept confidential and may not to be used for individual benefit of reviewer(s). This rule is also applied for reviewer(s) who refuse request to review a manuscript.

Author's Duties

Reporting Standards

The author(s) of original research must present work and result reports accurately, followed by objective discussions about the importance of their research. The manuscript must contain adequate details and references to allow others to cite the research. The writing of literature review must be done accurately, objective and comprehensive, while the author’s opinion(s) must be clearly notified as such an author’s point of view(s). False statements or intentional inaccuracies are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide raw data of their studies together with manuscripts for editorial review and must be prepared to make data publicly available if possible. The author must ensure the accessibility of the data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably through an institution-based data warehouse or subject-based data or other data center), as long as that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and the legal rights to data ownership do not preclude disclosure of the data.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they write and submit original work, and if they have used the work and / or words of others, then this has been appropriately quoted. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the research reported in the manuscript must also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms. There is a form of plagiarism where the author use the reason for "continuing" the research of others while in fact it is the research of the author himself. The other forms of plagiarism are, to copy or decipher important parts of someone else's paper (without attribution) and to claim the results of research done by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent delivery

Manuscript describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or major publication. Therefore, authors may not submit manuscript that have been published to the other journals. Submission of a manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

The publication of certain types of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal can sometimes be justified, provided certain conditions are met. The author and editor of the journal concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the main document. Primary references should be cited in secondary publications.

Authorship of manuscript

Only people who meet these authorship criteria must be listed as authors in the manuscript because they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i)       make a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, data acquisition, or analysis / interpretation of learning; and (ii)       designing the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content; and (iii)     has seen and agreed to the final version of the paper and approved the submission for publication.The person(s) who make major contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical assistance, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet authorship criteria may not be listed as authors, but must be recognized in the "Acknowledgement" Section after permission of the person(s) concerned. The appropriate author must ensure that all co-authors are appropriate (according to the definition above) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the list of authors and ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final manuscript and approve the submission for publication, which is proven written in a Letter of Intent to the manuscript which is a prerequisite of the Letter of Acceptance of the manuscript. 

Disclossure of conflict of interest

Authors must be at the earliest stage (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript) - disclosing any conflict of interest that can be interpreted to affect their results or interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include financial matters such as honorariums, educational grants or other funding, participation in oral presentations, membership, employment, consultants, share ownership, or other equity interests, and paid expert testimony or patent-arrangement licensing, and also non-financial relationships such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in public research material or material discussed in manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the work must be disclosed (including grant numbers or other reference numbers if any).

Source recognition

Authors must ensure that they have recognized the work of others correctly, and must also cite publications that have influenced the nature of the work reported. Information obtained privately (from conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties) may not be used or reported without written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in order to provide confidential services, such as manuscripts that have been given a review or grant application, unless they obtain explicit written permission from the author of the work involved.

Hazards from human or animal subjects

If the research involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify this in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the author must ensure that all procedures are carried out in accordance with relevant legal and institutional rules and that the appropriate institutional committee has agreed; the manuscript must contain the statement. The author must also include a statement in the manuscript that written agreement has been obtained for experiments with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must also always be considered.

Peer review

The author is obliged to participate in the peer review process and fully cooperate in response to the editors' requests for raw data, clarification, and evidence of ethical approval, patient consent and copyright. In the case of the first decision "revision needed", the author must respond to reviewers' comments in a systematic, direct, and immediate manner, revising and resubmitting their manuscripts to the journal within the given deadline.

In case there is a fundamental error in the published work

When writers find significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with them to correct the text either in a form of errata or retraction. If the editor or publisher knows from a third party that the published work contains significant errors or inaccuracies, the writer must immediately correct or submit a request for retraction or provide evidence to the journal editor about the truth of the manuscript.

Tobacco industry funded work

Indonesian Journal of Cardiovascular Archieve of  will not consider for publication papers reporting work funded, in whole or in part, by a tobacco company or tobacco industry organization. Nor will the journal consider papers by authors who accept tobacco industry funding, including funding for research costs, for all or part of any author’s salary, or other forms of personal remuneration. For further information, please read this editorial giving the reasoning behind the journal’s policy. Failure to declare competing interests at submission, or when an article is commissioned, can result in immediate rejection of the paper. If a competing interest comes to light after publication, Tobacco Control will issue a formal correction to or retraction of the whole paper, as appropriate.