Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery provides an international forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, current knowledge and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other reviews and updates across broad range of clinical and interdisciplinary topics including:

  1. midwifery;
  2. maternity and children health;
  3. primary care for women and newborn;
  4. public health;
  5. health care policy;
  6. health system, and global health.
It also covers cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception and other health systems.

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

  1. Editors first review the submitted manuscript, called initial review by the editors. It will be desk evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for the Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery based on focus and scope, similarity score by using Crosscheck-iThenticate, methodological flaw, readability of the articles, and adhering to the submitted paper template.
  2. Furthermore, the manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers.
  3. Review process article using Blind Peer Review
  4. The anonymous reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Afterward, the editorial team meeting suggested the final decision to the revised manuscript by authors.
  5. Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.
  6. The accepted manuscript then continued to the copyediting and layout editing process to prepare the camera-ready paper.

Review Outcomes

Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include:

  • Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to Jurnal Citizenship.
  • Resubmit for Review– The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, it may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
  • Accept with Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery under the condition that Minor or Major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editorial team to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
  • Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form, with no further modifications required.

Correspondence

All correspondence concerning manuscripts should be directed to the Editor of Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery and cc to jhtam@unisayogya.ac.id. The Editor will direct all correspondence to the lead author; the lead author is responsible for sharing communications with other authors. Beyond communication concerning the review, manuscripts accepted for publication may require additional correspondence to complete copyediting and layout editing.

 

 

 

Publication Frequency

This journal publishes two times a year in May and November.

 

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.

 

Publication Ethics

This statement was adapted from the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and covered the code of ethics for the chief editor, editorial board members, reviewers, and authors. This statement based on:

https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

Articles published in the Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery are an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge on Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery, and those are a direct reflection of the writer's and institutions' quality. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the society.  Editors of the Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery are committed to guaranteeing that all procedures directed merely to facilitate an objective and intellectual treatment. Further, the editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or particular political and group interest. Software used to avoid plagiarism among the articles.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions: 

The editor boards journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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.

2. Fair Play: 

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

3. Confidentiality: 

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the paper (while handling it) in his or her research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or idea obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests revealed after publication.

5. Review of Manuscripts:

The editor must ensure that the editor for originality initially evaluates each manuscript. The editor should organize and use peer review justly 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. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

A reviewer should review and send the review comments in the due period. If the article is not in your area of interest, then revert to the editor so that the other reviewers can be approached.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2. Promptness: 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process

3. Confidentiality: 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

4. Standards of Objectivity: 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The proper citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for a particular advantage. Reviewers should not review 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.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standard: 

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2. Data Access and Retention: 

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism: 

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must appropriately be cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4. Multiple Publication: 

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

6. Authorship of the Paper: 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript.

8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.

9. Fundamental errors in published works: 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original article.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

Papers submitted to the Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to the Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery must have a similarity level of less than 20% (Exclude Bibliography), and the similarity score to each source is no more than 3%.

Plagiarism is the exposure of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. To accurately judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:

  • An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work that is suspected of plagiarism.

  • Substantial copying implies an author reproduces a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledgment, or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.

  • Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words, or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.