Focus and Scope

Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia is a nationally accredited journal that publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in the field of nutrition and health. The journal aims to serve as a platform for disseminating scientific findings and innovations in nutrition and health to nutrition professionals, including those involved in nutrition education, nutrition services in hospitals and primary health care centers, as well as nutrition practitioners working in health offices and other related institutions.

Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia is published four times a year (January, April, July, and October) by the Master of Public Health Program, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada in collaboration with the Indonesian Nutrition Association (PERSAGI) and the Indonesian Dietitian Association (AsDI).

Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the field of nutrition and health sciences. The journal’s focus and scopes related to the following aspects:

• Clinical Nutrition
• Public Health Nutrition
• Sports Nutrition
• Molecular Nutrition
• Nutritional Biochemistry
• Food Service Management
• Functional Foods (studies on the effects of functional food interventions on nutritional status and health, rather than on the development or processing of functional foods)

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Erratum

• Ignasia Ika Kusumaningtyas, S.Gz

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Special issues

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition) undergo a rigorous screening and review process to ensure that they fit into the journal's scope and are of sufficient academic quality and novelty to appeal to JGKI readership. Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition) employs a double-blind peer review, in which both author(s) and reviewers identities are concealed from each other.

Initial screening. A newly submitted manuscript will be screened by the Editor-in-Chief for its conformity to JGKI’s scope and basic submission requirements.

Peer-review. If the manuscript passes the initial screening stage, it will be assigned to a handling editor, who will then send it to at least two experts in the relevant field to undergo a double-blind peer-review. Manuscripts that fail to pass the initial screening will be rejected without further review.

First decision. A decision on a peer-reviewed manuscript will only be made upon the receipt of at least two review reports. In cases where reports differ significantly, the handling editor will invite an additional reviewer to get a third opinion before making a decision. At this stage, a manuscript can either be rejected, asked for revisions (minor or major), accepted as is, or (if significant changes to the language or content are required) recommended for resubmission for a second review process. If it is accepted, the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author for formatting. The final decision to accept the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendation of the handling editor and following approval by the board of editors.

Revision stage. A manuscript that requires revisions will be returned to the submitting author, who will have up to six weeks to format and revise the manuscript, following which it will be reviewed by the handling editor. The handling editor will determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, as well as whether the author(s) sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed to be inadequate, this cycle will be repeated (the manuscript will be returned to the submitting author once more for further revision).

Final decision. At this stage, the revised manuscript will either be accepted or rejected. This decision is dependent whether the handling editor finds the manuscript to have been improved to a level worthy of publication. If the author(s) are unable to make the required changes or have done so to a degree below JGKI's standards, the manuscript will be rejected.

Publication Frequency

Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition) is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October through the Open Journal Systems platform.

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

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
This statement clarifies ethical conduct to all parties involved in manuscript publication Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition), including the author(s), Editor in Chief, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is relied on Practice Guidelines for publication as in Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE’s Best).

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher as well as the society.

Publication decisions

The editor of the Jurnal Gizi Klinik Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Clinical Nutrition) is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be accepted for publication. 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. The journal used iThenticate to detect the possibilities of plagiarism in the manuscript.

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

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

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewer(s) assists the editorial team in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author. Besides, the reviewer(s) may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

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.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 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.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider 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
Reporting standards
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 conduct and are unacceptable.

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 (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

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 that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent 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 concurrently constitutes unethical publishing conduct and is unacceptable.

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.

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 there are others who 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.

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 clearly identify these in the manuscript. The procedures related to humans or animals should be approved by the Ethics Committee and/or refer to the standard procedures.

Natural Medicine Materials
A study using natural medicine materials should provide the latin names, nomenclature author, family name (in parentheses), the source, extraction/fractionation methods for all collected materials used in the study. Pharmacological Evaluation of the materials should use a reference (positive control).

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.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper

Screening Plagiarism

The journal uses iThenticate to detect potential plagiarism in manuscripts.

Journal Archiving

This Journal utilizes the PKP PN system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries. It permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the Journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

Statistic Download Article

Statistic download using ALM Plugin, statistic will shown on every article page.

ex: https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jgki/article/view/15440

Review Guidelines

REVIEW PROCESS OF MANUSCRIPT: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know:

• The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.
• Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).

3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist:

• Is the question of interest sound and significant?
• Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers)
• Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?

5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is:

• Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review.
• Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review.
• A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

FULL REVIEW PROCESS OF MANUSCRIPT

1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow, that is, has a logical progression and evident organization?
2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Any parts that should be reduced, eliminated/expanded/added?
3. Note if there are major problems with mechanics: grammar, punctuation, spelling. (If there are just a few places that aren’t worded well or correctly, make a note to tell the author the specific places. If there are consistent problems throughout, only select an example or two if need be- don’t try and edit the whole thing).
4. Abbreviations: Used judiciously and are composed such that reader won’t have trouble remembering what an abbreviation represents.
5. Follows style, format and other rules of the journal.
6. Citations are provided when providing evidence-based information from outside sources.

  

   View My Stats