Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Jurnal Kesehatan applies a double-blind peer review system to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The review process is designed to ensure that published articles meet appropriate academic standards and contribute to the development of knowledge in health sciences.

All submissions are subject to an initial editorial assessment. Only manuscripts that satisfy the journal's preliminary requirements and align with its focus and scope proceed to external peer review.

1. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Kesehatan are assessed according to the following considerations:

Originality and Contribution

The manuscript should present original findings, meaningful analysis, or a valuable synthesis of existing knowledge relevant to health sciences.

Relevance to the Journal

The topic must be consistent with the journal's focus and scope, including nursing, midwifery, public health, health promotion, nutrition, and related disciplines.

Methodological Quality

The research design, data collection, analytical procedures, and interpretation of findings should be appropriate to the research objectives and clearly explained.

Scientific Validity

The conclusions must be supported by the findings and evidence presented. Claims should be appropriately referenced and discussed in relation to relevant scholarly literature.

Ethical Compliance

Research involving human participants, personal data, or other ethically sensitive matters must comply with applicable research ethics standards and relevant approval or consent requirements.

2. Stages of the Review Process

Stage 1 — Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks whether the submission is complete, follows the manuscript preparation guidelines, fits the journal's scope, and meets basic standards of originality and scholarly quality. Plagiarism screening may also be conducted.

Stage 2 — Editorial Assessment

The editor determines whether the manuscript is suitable for external review. Submissions that fall outside the journal's scope, do not meet essential requirements, or demonstrate substantial academic deficiencies may be rejected at this stage.

Stage 3 — Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's scientific contribution, methodology, validity of findings, clarity, references, and compliance with research ethics. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, including when the initial assessments differ substantially.

Stage 4 — Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor determines the appropriate outcome. Possible decisions include acceptance, a request for minor revisions, a request for major revisions, or rejection.

Stage 5 — Revision and Final Evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.

Stage 6 — Final Acceptance and Publication

Manuscripts approved for publication proceed to the subsequent editorial and production stages, including copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and online publication.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability for the subject of the manuscript. The editorial team seeks reviewers who can provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before undertaking an evaluation. A reviewer who cannot provide an impartial assessment should decline the invitation.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and professionally.

• Provide clear comments that help authors improve the quality of their work.

• Assess the validity of the methods, findings, interpretation, and conclusions.

• Identify relevant omissions in the literature or concerns regarding research ethics.

• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all information obtained during review.

• Declare potential conflicts of interest and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision but do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be published.

5. Confidentiality and Anonymity

Jurnal Kesehatan uses double-blind peer review. Authors and reviewers are not informed of one another's identities during the review process.

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts, review reports, and editorial communications as confidential. Manuscript content must not be used for personal research or other purposes without appropriate authorization.

Authors should ensure that the submitted manuscript and any supplementary files intended for reviewers do not inadvertently disclose their identities.

6. Editorial Decisions

The editorial team makes decisions based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, methodological rigor, reviewers' recommendations, and compliance with publication ethics.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet its requirements. A decision to invite revisions does not guarantee acceptance. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the editor authorized under the journal's editorial procedures.

7. Research Ethics and Publication Integrity

The journal expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold academic integrity throughout the publication process.

Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or unethical research practices may be investigated in accordance with the journal's policies.

Where necessary, the editorial team may request additional information or documentation, including evidence of research ethics approval and informed consent, as applicable to the study.