Peer Review Proccess

Peer-Review Process Policy

The Indonesian Health Science Journal (IHSJ) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scientific publications through a fair, transparent, and systematic peer-review process. Manuscripts are evaluated based on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's scope, and publication ethics.

  1. Type of Peer Review

IHSJ applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Authors must remove identifying information from their manuscripts, and reviewers must maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

  1. Stages of the Peer-Review Process

The peer-review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Manuscript Submission: Authors submit manuscripts through the IHSJ Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.
  2. Initial Editorial Screening: The editor checks scope, format, completeness, originality, similarity, and publication ethics.
  3. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts passing screening are assigned to qualified reviewers.
  4. Peer Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations through OJS.
  5. Editorial Decision: The editor determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
  6. Manuscript Revision and Re-evaluation: Authors address reviewer comments, and revised manuscripts may undergo further review.
  7. Final Acceptance and Publication Preparation: Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, proofreading, and publication preparation.
  1. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript passing the initial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. If their recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may appoint a third reviewer. The editor makes the final decision based on the review reports and the manuscript's scientific quality.

  1. Reviewer Qualifications and Selection

Reviewers are selected based on relevant academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, scientific publications, familiarity with research methods, and ability to provide objective and timely evaluations. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

  1. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  1. Relevance to the journal's scope.
  2. Originality and scientific contribution.
  3. Research background and objectives.
  4. Appropriateness of methodology and data analysis.
  5. Accuracy and clarity of results.
  6. Quality of discussion and interpretation.
  7. Consistency of conclusions with findings.
  8. Research ethics and participant protection.
  9. Quality of references, academic writing, and manuscript presentation.
  1. Review Timeline and Estimated Duration

The estimated timeline is:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks.
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks after reviewer assignment.
  • Author revision: 1–3 weeks.
  • Re-evaluation and final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks after receipt of the revised manuscript.

These estimates may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

  1. Revision and Editorial Decisions

The editor may issue one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors must respond to reviewer comments point by point and explain any comments they cannot address. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review. The final decision rests with the editor, and resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.

  1. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Manuscripts and review reports are confidential. Reviewers and editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and ensure impartial evaluation. Unpublished information must not be shared or used without authorization. Authors must disclose relevant competing interests in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

  1. Alignment with the Journal's Editorial System

The peer-review process is managed through the IHSJ OJS platform, where reviewer assignments, review reports, revisions, and editorial decisions are documented. This policy must reflect the journal's actual editorial procedures and be reviewed periodically to maintain consistency between published policies and operational practices.

  1. Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, relevance, and ethical compliance, without non-scientific influence. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, and other misconduct are handled in accordance with IHSJ's publication ethics policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

IHSJ is committed to a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.