Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system and follows relevant publication ethics standards and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal's aims and scope and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

The initial assessment considers the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope, completeness of the submission, adherence to author guidelines, clarity of presentation, and any evident ethical or editorial concerns.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or present substantial deficiencies that prevent meaningful peer review may be rejected without external review. The editor may also request preliminary revisions before deciding whether a manuscript should proceed to peer review.

Similarity screening using Turnitin is conducted after the peer review and revision process, before the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, in accordance with JIKA's Plagiarism Policy.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JIKA applies a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process, as far as reasonably practicable.

Authors must submit a manuscript file that does not disclose their identities, institutional affiliations, or other identifying information. Acknowledgments and declarations that may reveal author identities should be removed from the review version where necessary and submitted separately or restored at the appropriate stage.

This system is intended to reduce potential bias and support an objective and fair evaluation of manuscripts. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the research topic, methodology, or previously available information may reveal the identity of the authors.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Where necessary, the editor may invite additional reviewers or seek advice from subject experts to support an informed editorial decision.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scientific and editorial criteria, including:

Relevance to the aims and scope of JIKA.
Originality and contribution to scientific knowledge.
Clarity of the research objectives and research questions.
Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.
Validity of data analysis and interpretation, including the use of appropriate statistical methods where applicable.
Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions.
Adequacy and relevance of the cited literature.
Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements.
Clarity, organization, and quality of the manuscript presentation.

Reviewers should provide constructive, evidence-based comments that help authors improve their manuscripts. Criticism must address the scientific content and should not include personal or discriminatory remarks.

5. Review Timeline

JIKA aims to complete the initial peer review within approximately two to four weeks after reviewers accept the invitation, subject to reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Authors are expected to submit revisions within the deadline communicated by the editorial office. If additional time is needed, authors may request an extension with an appropriate justification, subject to editorial approval.

The review period may be extended when additional reviewers are required, substantial revisions are necessary, or further clarification is needed. The editorial office will communicate significant delays to the relevant parties where appropriate.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor evaluates the reviewers' comments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and its compliance with the journal's editorial and publication ethics requirements.

Editorial decisions may include:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further assessment.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements.

Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor acting on the Editor-in-Chief's behalf.

Authors will be informed of the editorial decision and provided with relevant reviewer comments, subject to confidentiality and editorial requirements.

7. Author Revisions and Reassessment

Authors required to revise their manuscripts should respond to the reviewers' comments systematically and explain how each substantive concern has been addressed. Where a suggestion is not adopted, authors should provide a clear scientific justification.

The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the issues raised.

Acceptance is not guaranteed solely because a revised manuscript has been submitted. The editor will determine whether the revisions adequately address the concerns identified during the review process.

8. Post-Review Similarity Screening

After the peer review and revision process has been completed, JIKA conducts a similarity check using Turnitin before the manuscript proceeds to copyediting.

JIKA applies a maximum acceptable similarity index of 25%. The similarity index is not, by itself, a definitive measure of plagiarism. The editorial team assesses the report in context, considering the nature, extent, and source of textual overlap.

If potentially problematic similarities are identified, the editorial team may request clarification or further revision, or take other appropriate action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Detailed requirements and procedures are provided in the Plagiarism Policy.

9. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related editorial correspondence as confidential. They must not share, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
Disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other potential publication ethics concerns, providing relevant evidence where possible.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor when additional time is required.
Avoid personal criticism and maintain professional communication.

Reviewers must not upload or disclose confidential manuscript content to generative AI tools or other third-party services where doing so would breach confidentiality or the journal's applicable policies.

A review certificate may be issued to reviewers in accordance with JIKA's editorial procedures.

10. Editor Responsibilities and Editorial Independence

Editors are responsible for managing the peer review process, selecting appropriate reviewers, evaluating reviewer reports, and making final editorial decisions.

Editors must act fairly, objectively, and independently. Decisions must be based on scientific merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the available review evidence.

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and transfer responsibility for a manuscript to another qualified editor when their impartiality may be compromised.

JIKA does not permit inappropriate interference by authors, institutions, sponsors, or other external parties in editorial decisions.

11. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts must comply with JIKA's publication ethics requirements. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential breaches of publication ethics will be assessed in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

Where necessary, the editor may request clarification or supporting documentation, consult independent experts, or contact the authors' affiliated institutions or other appropriate bodies.

Allegations will be assessed fairly, and an allegation alone will not be treated as proof of misconduct. Appropriate editorial action will be taken based on the available evidence and the seriousness of the concern.

For further information, please refer to the following policies:

12. Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This Peer Review Policy should be read in conjunction with JIKA's other editorial and publication ethics policies:

13. Policy Review

JIKA will review this policy periodically and revise it when necessary to maintain consistency with the journal's editorial procedures, publication ethics standards, and recognized scholarly publishing practices.