Folia Medica Indonesiana adheres to the ethical standards established by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) (https://www.wma.net/policy/current-policies/), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) for all published manuscript containing research on humans and/or using animals models. Folia Medica Indonesiana is committed to maintaining ethical standards and protecting the rights, privacy, and welfare of participants; including for the minority groups if applicable.

This principle also pertains to the use of animal models in research (https://publicationethics.org/case/ethical-standards-animal-research). Universitas Airlangga, the publisher, maintains these standards and guarantees that editorial decisions are impartial. The author(s) and peer-reviewer(s) are both oblivious to the other, ensuring that a submitted manuscript is subjected to a rigorous double-blind peer-review. Folia Medica Indonesiana does not tolerate any form of plagiarisms. We employ https://turnitin.com to evaluate the similarity rate of all submitted manuscripts. A manuscript contains similarity rate of more than 20% will be rejected.

Research Ethics & Consent

All original research articles involving humans, animals, plants, biological materials, protected or non-public datasets, collections, or places must contain a written statement in an Ethics Approval section that includes the following:
- The designation of the ethical committee(s) or institutional review board(s) engaged.
- The identification number or ID of the ethics approval(s).
- A declaration that human subjects have given informed permission prior to their involvement in the research.
- Research involving animals must comply with ethical norms regarding animal care. All original research publications involving animals must adhere to international, national, and institutional regulations regarding the humane treatment of animals.
- Obtain approval from the ethics review committee at the institution or practice where the research was conducted, and include specifics regarding the approval process, the names of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s) involved, and the identification number or ID of the ethics approval(s) in the Ethics Approval section.
- Justify the utilization of animals and the chosen species.
- Furnish details regarding housing, nutrition, environmental enrichment, and measures implemented to mitigate suffering.
- Specify the method of anesthetic and euthanasia.
- Research failing to comply with the aforementioned criteria concerning ethical approval and animal welfare will be disqualified.

All manuscripts including details or photos pertaining to an individual must secure written informed consent for publishing from that individual (or their parent or legal guardian if under 18 years old). Consent is required for the publication of their details under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY-NC-SA), ensuring they are publicly accessible on the internet. Consent for publication must be acquired from the deceased's next of kin. Authors may utilize the consent form to secure permission for publishing, or an other consent form from their respective institution or location if suitable. The consent form must indicate that the details/images will be publicly accessible on the internet and may be viewed by the general populace. The consent form shall be provided upon manuscript submission and will be handled with confidentiality.

a. Research Involving Humans

If the research involve human subjects, the author must assure compliance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for human experimentation. The paper must adhere to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and strive for the inclusion of representative human populations regarding sex, age, and ethnicity in accordance with those guidelines. The phrases sex and gender must be utilized accurately. All protocols must have received approval from the authors' institutional or pertinent ethical commission (Institutional Review Board, IRB) to ensure compliance with national and international criteria. Submission of an article must include details of this approval, such as the institution, review board name, and permit number(s). Ethics approval must be secured prior to conducting the research; retrospective approval is typically unattainable, and publication of the work may be infeasible. Authors must add a statement in the publication confirming that informed consent was acquired for testing with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must be consistently upheld.

b. Research Involving Animals

All animal experiments must adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines and be conducted in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experimentation, or the National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors must explicitly state in the manuscript that these guidelines have been followed. The sex of animals must be specified, and when relevant, the impact of sex on the study's results should be noted. Experiments with vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must adhere to the ethical criteria established by the authors' institution and applicable national or international regulations. Where relevant, a declaration of ethics approval or animal licenses should be incorporated. In every instance, a declaration must be issued to affirm that all measures were used to alleviate any animal suffering, accompanied by specifics on the methods employed.

c. Research Involving Plants

Research on plants must adhere to the protocols established by the authors' institution and any national or international regulations. Where relevant, a declaration of granted permits or licenses should be incorporated. Authors must adhere to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

For Author

a. Reporting requirement
Authors of original research reports must include a precise summary of the conducted study and an impartial discussion of its importance. The article must appropriately portray the underlying data. Authors must be ready to offer public access to raw data related to a work and preserve this data for a minimum of two years post-publication. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate remarks represent unethical conduct and are intolerable. 

b. Originality, plagiarism, and simultaneous publication
Authors must guarantee that their work is wholly unique and that any contributions or expressions of others are duly credited. All forms of plagiarism represent unethical publishing conduct and are intolerable. Submitting a work concurrently to many journals is considered unethical publication conduct and is impermissible. 

c. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors must state any financial or substantial conflicts of interest in their paper that could be perceived as influencing the outcomes or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial backing for the project must be revealed. 

d. Attribution of the manuscript
The corresponding author must verify that all suitable co-authors are included in the manuscript, excluding any unsuitable co-authors, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to its submission for publication. All individuals who have made substantial contributions should be acknowledged as co-authors. Individuals who have engaged in certain substantive elements of the research endeavor should be recognized or designated as the contributors in the acknowledgment.

e. Essential inaccuracies in published literature
Upon identifying a substantial error or inaccuracy in a published work, the author is obligated to promptly inform the journal editor and collaborate with the editor to retract or amend the manuscript. 

For Reviewer

a. Contribution to editorial determinations
Reviewers aid the editorial board in rendering editorial decisions. Reviews must be executed impartially, and observations should be articulated distinctly with substantiating arguments to enable authors to enhance their manuscript. Personal critique of the author is unwarranted.

b. Reviewer qualifications
Any appointed referee who believes they are unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a paper or recognizes that a timely evaluation is unfeasible should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process. Reviewers must refrain from evaluating manuscripts in which they own conflicts of interest arising from competing, collaborative, or other affiliations with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscripts.

c. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted for consideration must be regarded as confidential documents. Confidential information or concepts acquired through peer review must remain undisclosed and not be utilized for personal gain.

d. Recognition of sources
Reviewers must identify pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Attributions to the concepts of others must include the appropriate citation. A reviewer must inform the editor of any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript in question and any other published work of which they are aware.

For Editor

a. Decisions regarding publication
The journal's editorial board determines which submitted articles will be published. The board members deliberate and consider reviewer recommendations in their decision-making, while adhering to legal obligations including libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions remain uninfluenced by the manuscript's origins, encompassing the writers' nationality, ethnicity, political convictions, race, or religion.

b. Confidentiality, disclosure, and conflicts of interest
Editors shall not reveal information regarding a submitted manuscript to anybody except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisors during the review process. Unpublished materials revealed in a submitted paper must not be utilized in an editor's, reviewer's, or any other reader's research without the explicit written permission of the author. Readers must be apprised of the entities that financed the research or scholarly work, as well as any involvement the funders had in the research process and its publication, including the nature of that involvement.

c. Author relationships
Editors endeavor to guarantee that the peer-review process at the journal is equitable, impartial, and prompt. The journal has instituted standards for managing submissions from editorial board members to guarantee impartial assessment. In the CTA form, each author contribution must be declare.

d. Relations with reviewers
Folia Medica Indonesiana urges reviewers to address ethical concerns and potential misconduct associated with submissions (e.g., unethical research design and improper data manipulation) and to remain vigilant for redundant publication and plagiarism. Comments from reviewers must be forwarded to writers in full, except where they include offensive or defamatory statements. The publication routinely acknowledges the contributions of reviewers and discontinues the employment of those who repeatedly deliver discourteous, substandard, or tardy evaluations.

e. Quality assurance
Editors must undertake all prudent measures to guarantee the quality of the information they publish, acknowledging that various sections possess distinct objectives and standards. Editors must obtain confirmation that the study they publish has received approval from a relevant authority (e.g., research ethics committee, institutional review board) where applicable. Editors must remain vigilant regarding intellectual property concerns and collaborate with their publishers to address possible violations of laws and conventions. Errors, inaccuracies, or misleading claims must be rectified swiftly and with appropriate prominence.

COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS

If readers have any concerns or complaints regarding published articles, we encourage them to first reach out to the corresponding author in an attempt to resolve the issue directly, prior to contacting the editorial office.

If it is impractical to contact the authors directly, if they are unresponsive, or if the issues persist unresolved, readers are encouraged to contact the editorial office. Upon receipt of such communications, the editorial office will engage with the complainant, the author(s), as well as the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board to thoroughly investigate, discuss, and resolve any concerns or grievances raised.

Any complaints, comments, or requests for updates pertaining to the scholarly integrity, ethical considerations, or legal aspects of the published article or its peer review process will be carefully examined as necessary. The editorial office, in collaboration with the editorial board and under the final approval of the editor-in-chief, will conduct comprehensive investigations in line with publication ethics guidelines established by COPE. Additional consultations with relevant parties, such as university officials or specialists, may be sought as appropriate, especially in cases involving legal implications.

It is important to note that personal opinions or critiques will not be considered. All complaints, including those submitted anonymously, will be thoroughly assessed. Should complainants wish to discuss their concerns confidentially, they are encouraged to request such discussions with the editorial office. According to internal procedures, confidentiality will be maintained to the best of our ability.

Decisions regarding corrections, comments and replies, expressions of concerns, or retractions resulting from investigations will be made by the editor-in-chief, section editor, or editorial board members and communicated to the authors accordingly. 

In cases where complaints are found to be unsubstantiated, further communication will only be entertained upon presentation of additional evidence supporting the concerns raised.

During an inquiry, complainants may not receive updates on the investigation's progress until a final decision is reached. However, they will be promptly informed of any new developments. Please keep in mind that members of the editorial board and editorial office are not obligated to provide additional information. Communication may be terminated if discussions deviate from respectful and constructive dialogue. Readers are advised that conducting inquiries is a meticulous process that demands careful consideration and time.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All authors are obligated to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, including any financial, personal, or other relationships with other individuals or organizations that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work. Folia Medica Indonesiana follows the guidelines about conflict of interest as stated in https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests.

MISCONDUCT

The journal regards all types of misconduct with utmost seriousness and will implement all requisite measures, in alignment with COPE recommendations, to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record.
Instances of misbehavior encompass (but are not confined to):
• Misrepresentation of affiliation
• Violations of copyright/unauthorized use of third-party materials
• Citation manipulation
• Duplicate submission/publication
• "Ethics dumping"
• Image or data modification/fabrication
• Manipulation of peer review
• Plagiarism
• Text recycling/self-plagiarism
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Unethical research practices

a. Duplicate Submission*)

Manuscripts identified as already published or currently under review elsewhere will face penalty for duplicate submission/publication. Authors must cite their own previously published work or work presently under review if it serves as the foundation for a submitted manuscript, and they must explain how the submitted manuscript provides novel contributions beyond the prior work.

Manuscripts submitted that contain citations primarily intended for increasing the citation count of a certain author's work or papers published in a particular journal will face penalty for citation manipulation.

Manuscripts submitted that contain faked or falsified experimental results, including picture manipulation, will face fines for data fabrication and falsification.

All mentioned authors must have made a substantial scientific contribution to the research in the publication and endorsed all its assertions. It is essential to enumerate all individuals who made substantial scientific contributions, including students and laboratory personnel. Further explanation as stated in Instructions for Authors.

Redundant publications involve the improper segmentation of research findings into many articles.

Intentional measures employed to improperly alter or falsify an image constitutes a serious kind of wrongdoing intended to deceive others and undermine the integrity of the scholarly record, resulting in extensive and enduring repercussions. The journal mandates that all photographs in articles must be precise and unaltered. Specific elements within a picture must not be improved, disguised, relocated, eliminated, or inserted without proper notification of the alteration. Modifications to the brightness, contrast, or color balance of an image are permissible provided they do not obscure, remove, or mislead the information contained in the original. The organization of figures or the accompanying figure legend must clearly indicate the grouping of images from various sections of gels, western blots, or microscopy images. If the original, unaltered photographs cannot be provided upon request by the journal, the acceptance of a manuscript or paper may be refused or withdrawn.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts are subjected to peer-review and are expected to meet the standards of academic excellence. If approved by the Editorial Board, submissions will be considered by peer-reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors and vice versa (double-blind peer-review). The decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is the responsibility of the Editorial Board and is based on the recommendations of the reviewers (peer-reviewed process). Our Editorial Board will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer-review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the external academic reviewer(s) before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by the Editorial Board and declining to further consider a submission.

USE OF AI

The regulation applies solely to the writing process and does not address the utilization of AI tools for data analysis and insight generation within the research process.
Writers utilizing AI and AI-assisted technologies in their writing process should aim to improve readability and language, rather than replace critical authorial functions such as producing scientific, educational, or medical insights, formulating scientific conclusions, or providing clinical recommendations. This technology must always be utilized with human supervision and control, and all outputs should undergo meticulous review and editing. Artificial intelligence possesses the capability to generate content that appears authoritative yet may be erroneous, deficient, or prejudiced. Ultimately, authors hold ownership and accountable for what they create.

Authors are required to explicitly identify their utilization of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their articles, and such a declaration will be incorporated in the published work. This transparency cultivates confidence among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, while ensuring adherence to the terms of use for applicable tools or technologies.

Authors must avoid assigning authorship to AI or including AI as a co-author. Authorship encompasses obligations and duties that can solely be executed by humans. Each author is accountable for responding to questions concerning the accuracy or integrity of any aspect of the work, as well as for endorsing the final version and consenting to its submission. The authors are obligated to guarantee the originality of the work, confirm that the listed authors fulfill the criteria for authorship, and ensure that the work does not violate the rights of third parties. Further details must be in accordance with the guidance as follows guidelines.

This publication prohibits the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies, including ChatGPT, for peer review to safeguard authors' rights and maintain research confidentially (see to our GenAI reviewer policy). We are currently assessing compliant AI solutions and may amend this policy in the future.

Folia Medica Indonesiana allows authors to deposit all versions of their work. This policy sets out the ways in which authors of Folia Medica Indonesiana can self-archive versions of their work in their own web pages, institutional web pages, and another repository. Further explanation can be seen in the table below.