Mechanisms & Ethics of Publication Mechanisms in the Journal Medika Cendikia Articles must be written in English. Articles sent to the journal will be filtered by the editor and decide whether the article will be sent to reviewers or not. After the peer review, the reviewer gives a recommendation to the editor whether the article that has been reviewed is acceptable or not. Next, the Journal Editor Board considers the reviewers report and makes the final decision.


Author's original research account must be accurate from data or information and discuss it objectively. The underlying data must be accurately represented in the paper. A paper must provide sufficient details and references to other people to replicate the work. Statement of behavior of constitutional unity and unacceptability. Professional publications and articles must also be accurate and objective, and editorial work must be clearly identified.

The author is responsible for the problem of plagiarism. Plagiarism takes many forms of paper as the author's own work, to copy or paraphrase important parts of other papers (without attribution), to claim the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.

Authors can be asked to provide raw data in connection with papers for editorial review, and must provide public access to the data, if possible, and must be prepared for data for a reasonable time after publication. The author is also responsible for the Ethical approval of the Ethics Committee and submits ethical approval to the editorial team.

It is important to publish a text that describes basically the same as research in more than one journal or main publication. Submitting the same manuscript, more than one journal, is a publishing behavior that is unethical and unacceptable. In general, authors may not submit for consideration in other journals previously published papers.

 Correct recognition of work must be given. The author must cite publications that influence the nature of the work reported. Information obtained personally, such as in conversations, correspondence, or discussions with parties, must be written without written and explicit permission from the source. Information obtained during confidential services, such as reference manuscripts or grant applications, may not be used.

Writing must be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the research reported. All who have made significant contributions must be registered as co-authors. Where there are other people who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. The appropriate author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no co-authors are improperly included on paper, and that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the final version of the paper and have agreed to submit it for publication. If work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify this in the text. If work involves the use of animals or human subjects, the author must ensure that the text contains a statement that all procedures are carried out in accordance with the relevant legal and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee approves them. The author must enter a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experiments with human subjects. The right to privacy of human subjects must always be considered. All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any other financial or substantive conflicts of interest that might be interpreted to influence the results or interpretation of their text. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include work, consulting, share ownership, honorarium, expert testimony paid, patent application / registration, and other grants or funding. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed as early as possible. When a writer finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his self-published work, it is the duty of the author to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to retract or repair the paper. If the editor or publisher knows from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, it is the duty of the author to immediately withdraw or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor about the correctness of the original paper. (This guide is based on Elsevier's policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

The peer-reviewed JMC Editor Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal must be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance for researchers and readers must always encourage that decision. Editors can be guided by the editorial board's journal policies and are limited by legal requirements that will apply to defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors can negotiate with editors or other reviewers in making this decision. Editors must evaluate texts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the political philosophy of the author. Any editor and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the manuscript sent to anyone other than the appropriate author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors and publishers, as appropriate. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted text may not be used in the editor's own research without the author's written consent. Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors must resign (eg Must ask co-editors, associate editors or other members of the editorial board to review and consider) from considering the manuscript where they have a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration, or a relationship or other connection with one writers, companies, or (maybe) institutions that are connected to newspapers. The editor must ask all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and issue corrections if competing interests are disclosed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate actions must be taken, such as publication of revocation or disclosure of concern. An editor must take reasonably responsive steps when ethical complaints have been submitted regarding the manuscript sent or the paper published, along with the publisher (or community). These steps generally include contacting the author of the script or paper and providing appropriate consideration of each complaint or claim made, but can also include further communication with the relevant research institutions and bodies, and if the complaint is enforced, publication of corrections, revocation, disclosure of concern, or other records, which may be relevant. Every act of unethical publishing behavior reported must be seen, even though it was discovered many years after publication. (This guide is based on Elsevier's policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Peer reviewers review help editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with writers can also help authors improve papers. Peer review is an important component of formal scientific communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Each selected referee who feels he is not eligible to review the research reported in the text or knows that a quick review is not possible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Each text received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor. The review must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewer must identify the relevant published work that has not been quoted by the author. Each statement that observations, derivations, or previously reported arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer should also call the attention of the editor about the substantial or overlapping similarities between the text being considered and any other published papers that have personal knowledge. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted text may not be used in the reviewers' own research without the author's written consent. Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers may not consider texts where they have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any author, company or institution connected with the paper. (This guide is based on Elsevier's policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)