REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

JUKEJ: Jurnal Kesehatan Jompa implements a rigorous peer review process to maintain the quality, validity, originality, and academic integrity of published articles.

All research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment and, if they meet the requirements, proceed to independent peer review. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are generally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Manuscript Submission and Administrative Screening

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submitted manuscript, compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template, the completeness of required declarations, basic publication requirements, and other supporting information.

2. Initial Screening and Editorial Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, research integrity, and overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, have fundamental academic quality deficiencies, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise significant ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are generally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessments.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review model. Reviewers receive manuscripts from which the authors’ identifying information has been removed, while reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare their manuscripts so that their identities are not revealed in the anonymized files used during the review process.

5. Reviewer Assessment

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific and technical criteria, including originality, relevance, theoretical foundations, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, quality of discussion, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, ethical considerations, and contributions to the fields of health sciences, clinical practice, public health, nursing, midwifery, and related disciplines.

6. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s evaluation, the editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication.

  • Revisions Required / Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions.

  • Resubmit for Review / Major Revision: The manuscript requires major revisions and must be resubmitted for further review.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected.

7. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a written response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

8. Re-evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original reviewers or additional reviewers, particularly when substantial revisions are required. Further rounds of revision may be conducted before a final decision is made.

9. Final Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the responsible editor based on its academic quality, reviewers’ reports, the results of revisions, compliance with ethical standards, and suitability for the journal.

Reviewers’ recommendations inform editorial decision-making but do not automatically determine the final publication decision.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to consider the following aspects:

  • Suitability for the journal’s focus and scope.

  • Originality and significance of the research.

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.

  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

  • Appropriateness and rigour of the methodology.

  • Reliability and adequacy of the data analysis.

  • Quality of the research findings and their interpretation.

  • Depth and relevance of the discussion.

  • Consistency among the research objectives, findings, and conclusions.

  • Contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge or professional practice.

  • Quality and relevance of scholarly references.

  • Research and publication ethics.

  • Clarity of presentation and overall quality of academic writing.

Review Timeline

The journal strives to conduct the peer review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards. Reviewers are generally requested to complete each review assignment within approximately four weeks.

The actual time required to reach an editorial decision may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds required, and the speed with which authors respond to feedback.

Accordingly, the review timeline is a target rather than a guarantee that a manuscript will be accepted or published within a specific period.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationships or interests that could reasonably affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline a review invitation if they have financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence of their assessment.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and must not request unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing citations to their own work, particular authors, specific journals, or particular institutions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal, academic, commercial, or other purposes without appropriate authorization.

Review reports and communications relating to the peer review process are also treated as confidential editorial documents.

Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members are permitted to submit manuscripts to JUKEJ: Jurnal Kesehatan Jompa. However, they must not participate in the editorial evaluation, reviewer selection, peer review process, or publication decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Such manuscripts must be handled by another competent editor and processed independently in accordance with the journal’s standard peer review procedures to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Editorial Independence

The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor. Decisions are based on scientific quality, relevance to the journal, research integrity, peer review reports, and compliance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.

Manuscript acceptance is never guaranteed solely on the basis of reviewers’ recommendations.