1. Overview
Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA) follows a structured editorial and peer review process to assess the scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.
The process begins with an initial editorial screening and, for eligible manuscripts, continues through external peer review, editorial decision-making, author revision, and further assessment where necessary.
JIKA applies a double-blind peer review system. The operational procedures described in this policy should be read in conjunction with the journal’s Peer Review Policy.
2. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine whether they meet JIKA’s basic requirements for further consideration.
The editorial team assesses:
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
- Compliance with the author guidelines and submission requirements.
- Completeness, clarity, and organization of the manuscript.
- Originality and potential contribution to scientific knowledge.
- Appropriateness of the research design and methodology for the stated objectives.
- Availability of relevant research ethics approval and informed consent documentation, where applicable.
- Potential publication ethics or research integrity concerns.
Manuscripts that do not meet essential requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.
3. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor who identifies suitable independent reviewers.
JIKA normally seeks assessments from at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are invited based on their qualifications, research experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.
Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and confirm their availability to complete the review. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, including when the initial reports are conflicting or further specialist assessment is required.
4. Double-Blind Review
JIKA uses a double-blind review process. Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors, as far as reasonably practicable.
Authors should ensure that the review manuscript does not contain unnecessary identifying information. The editorial team handles submitted files and reviewer reports confidentially.
5. External Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the journal’s review criteria, including:
- Originality and scientific contribution.
- Relevance to the journal’s scope.
- Clarity of objectives and research questions.
- Appropriateness of the research design, sampling, and methodology.
- Validity of data analysis and interpretation.
- Consistency of the results, discussion, and conclusions.
- Relevance and adequacy of the cited literature.
- Compliance with applicable research ethics standards.
- Overall scientific clarity and quality.
Reviewers submit their assessments and recommendations to the editor. Their reports inform the editorial decision but do not replace the editor’s independent judgment.
6. Review Timeline
JIKA aims to complete the initial peer review within approximately two to four weeks after the invited reviewers accept the invitation.
This is an indicative timeframe and may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviewers, and the extent of the scientific assessment required.
Authors are expected to submit revisions within the deadline communicated by the editorial office. Extensions may be considered upon request and with editorial approval.
7. Editorial Decision
After evaluating the reviewer reports and the manuscript, the editor communicates one of the following decisions:
Accept. The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to any remaining editorial and production requirements.
Minor Revision. The authors must address limited issues before the editor makes a final decision.
Major Revision. The authors must make substantial changes. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed further by the editor.
Reject. The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements.
Where reviewer recommendations conflict, the editor may seek additional assessments or conduct further evaluation before reaching a decision.
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.
8. Author Revision and Resubmission
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.
The response should explain how each substantive comment has been addressed. If a recommendation is not adopted, the authors must provide a clear scientific justification.
The editor evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by additional reviewers, or evaluated directly by the editor.
A revised submission does not guarantee acceptance.
9. Similarity Screening and Final Editorial Checks
Following peer review and completion of the required revisions, the manuscript undergoes similarity screening using Turnitin in accordance with JIKA’s Plagiarism Policy.
The maximum acceptable similarity index is 25%. The similarity score is assessed in context and does not, by itself, establish plagiarism or determine acceptance.
The editorial team examines the sources and nature of textual overlap and may request clarification, further revisions, or additional assessment where necessary.
Before a manuscript proceeds to copyediting and production, the editorial team also checks that outstanding editorial requirements have been addressed and that applicable ethical and publication integrity requirements have been met.
10. Copyediting and Publication Preparation
Manuscripts that have received the necessary editorial approval and completed the required checks may proceed to copyediting and production.
This stage may include language editing, formatting, reference verification, metadata preparation, and other editorial corrections required by the journal.
Authors may be asked to review editorial queries or proofs, where applicable. Any remaining corrections must be addressed within the deadline communicated by the editorial office.
Final publication remains subject to completion of the journal’s applicable editorial and production requirements.
11. Delays and Additional Assessment
The editorial process may take longer than the indicative timeframe when reviewers are unavailable, additional expertise is required, substantial revisions are necessary, or ethical concerns require further investigation.
The editorial team may invite replacement reviewers, request additional information from authors, or undertake further assessment as appropriate. Relevant parties will be informed of significant delays where practicable.
12. Related Policies
This policy should be read together with:
- Peer Review Policy — principles, ethics, confidentiality, and responsibilities.
- Review Procedure — existing procedural guidance.
- Plagiarism Policy — similarity screening and originality requirements.
Other applicable JIKA policies on research ethics, conflicts of interest, publication malpractice, corrections, and retractions remain in effect.
13. Policy Review
JIKA periodically reviews its review procedures to maintain consistency with actual editorial practices, improve the efficiency and transparency of manuscript handling, and uphold recognized scholarly publishing and publication ethics standards.