Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of Educational, Health, and Community Psychology (JEHCP) published an article and empirical study that have originality, novelty, and fills the gap of knowledge, that focused on positive educational psychology, clinical health psychology, and community psychology for the International academic community that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing. JEHCP is an open-access peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal that publishes quality studies related to psychology. JEHCP  is interdisciplinary in approach and includes reports of qualitative case studies, quantitative experiments and surveys, mixed-method studies, action research, meta-analyses, and discussions of conceptual and methodological issues. The field of Positive Educational Psychology includes the effectiveness of educational interventions, the psychology of teaching, and the social psychology of schools as organizations, motor skills, and other psycho-physiological processes; cognitive development involving areas such as problem-solving, language acquisition; social, personality, and emotional development; self-concept and identity formation. The field of Clinical Health Psychology includes stress-related illnesses, the health coping strategy, resiliency, work on health attitudes and behavior, health locus of control, quality of life in chronic disease, the influence of emotion on health and health-related behaviors, psychological interventions in health and disease as well as psychological aspects of prevention. The field of Community Psychology includes research, evaluation, assessment and intervention, and review articles that deal with human behavior in community settings. Articles of interest include descriptions and evaluations of service programs and projects, studies of youth, parenting, and family development, methodology and design for work in the community, the interaction of groups in the larger community, and criminals and corrections. ISSN 2088 3219 (Print)/ISSN 2460 8467 (online).

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees by double-blind peer review for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible. The peer-review process is as follows:

  1. Editors first review the submitted manuscript, called the initial review by the editors. It will be desk evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for the Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology 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 three anonymous reviewers (Double-Blind Peer-Review). 
  3. 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 on the revised manuscript by the authors.
  4. Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.
  5. 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. 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 JEHCP.
  • 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 JEHCP 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 JEHCP and cc to jehcp@psy.uad.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.

 

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.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology (JEHCP), is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the JEHCP does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular manuscript.
  2. The review process is double-blind peer-review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. The authors must participate in the peer-review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. The authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. The authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. The authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscripts.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published papers to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of research funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

 

Retraction

The papers published in the 

The papers published in the Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology will be considered retracted in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

will be considered retracted in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.