Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA)

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing in the health and nursing sciences through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. JIKA employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous, promoting objectivity and preventing editorial bias.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Board, including the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editors. This process evaluates:

  • Alignment with JIKA's focus and scope.
  • Compliance with author guidelines and ethical publishing standards.
  • Originality, clinical/academic relevance, and clarity of presentation.

Note: Manuscripts that fail to meet fundamental requirements (e.g., out of scope, high similarity/plagiarism index, or major language deficiencies) may be rejected without external review (desk rejection). Approved submissions are assigned a unique Manuscript ID for tracking.

 

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JIKA strictly enforces a double-blind (double-anonymous) review protocol:

  • Authors' identities are concealed from Reviewers.
  • Reviewers' identities are concealed from Authors.

This system guarantees unbiased evaluation and protects the integrity of the editorial process.

 

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise in health, nursing, or related multidisciplinary fields.
  • Track record of relevant scholarly publications.
  • Previous peer-review experience.
  • Absence of potential conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions.

In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor reserves the right to appoint an additional reviewer to ensure a balanced final decision.

 

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on:

  • Novelty and significance of the research question to health sciences.
  • Rigor, appropriateness, and clarity of the research design and methodology.
  • Proper application and interpretation of statistical and analytical methods.
  • Compliance with ethical standards (including Institutional Review Board / Ethical Clearance approvals).
  • Logical coherence, clarity of argumentation, and quality of writing.
  • Adequacy, accuracy, and currency of cited references.

 

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and detailed evaluations to assist authors in improving their work. Reviewers must:

  1. Complete reviews within the specified timeframe.
  2. Provide clear recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject) supported by well-reasoned feedback.
  3. Immediately disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest.
  4. Preserve strict confidentiality (manuscript contents must not be shared, cited, or used for personal gain).
  5. Report suspected research misconduct or ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication).

 

6. Timeline & Communication

  • Review Process: Reviewers are generally given 2 to 4 weeks to submit their reports.
  • Author Revisions: Authors requested to make revisions are expected to resubmit within 2–4 weeks (Minor Revisions) or 4–8 weeks (Major Revisions).

 

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Senior Editors. Decisions are made considering:

  • Technical recommendations provided by external reviewers.
  • Editorial judgment regarding the paper's contribution, original merit, and overall alignment with JIKA's standards.

 

Reviewer Guidance'

Peer reviewers play a pivotal role in safeguarding the scholarly quality and validity of research published in Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA). Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles set forth in COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

 

Core Principles:

  1. Objectivity: Reviews must focus objectively on research quality. Personal criticism, derogatory remarks, or unprofessional language are strictly unacceptable.
  2. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline assignments where financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest exist.
  3. Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute unpublished manuscripts.
  4. Use of AI Tools: To protect intellectual property, uploading unpublished manuscript text into Generative AI platforms (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) is strictly prohibited.

 

Structure of Review Comments:

When submitting review feedback, please structure your report to include:

  • Summary of Work: Provide a brief summary highlighting the main research objectives, key findings, and scientific contribution.
  • Methodology & Ethics: Verify that research design, sampling methods, statistical analysis, and ethical approvals are properly documented and executed.
  • Results & Discussion: Assess whether data are clearly presented and if the conclusions drawn are fully supported by the evidence.
  • Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, actionable suggestions to help the authors address weaknesses in their work.

 

Review Quality and Process Improvement:

  • Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA) regularly monitors reviewer performance to ensure high-quality, constructive feedback. We welcome feedback from authors and reviewers to continuously improve the fairness, efficiency, and transparency of the peer review process. Contact us via editorial email: jika@salnesia.id

 

References:

COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editing peer reviews — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/AoZQIusn