Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia

1. Peer Review Policy

Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia applies an independent double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during editorial assessment and external peer review.

All submissions undergo administrative checking and initial editorial screening before external peer review. Manuscripts that pass these stages are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject, methodological, or statistical expertise.

Editorial decisions are based on scope relevance, originality, scientific contribution, methodological validity, research and publication ethics, reporting quality, clarity of presentation, and the complete editorial record.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor retains responsibility for all editorial decisions.

2. Core Review Principles

Double-Blind Review

Author and reviewer identities remain confidential.

Minimum Two Reviewers

Independent scholarly and methodological assessment.

Editorial Independence

Decisions are based on merit, not commercial considerations.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review records are protected.

3. Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

Step 1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial team verifies that the submission is complete and complies with the technical requirements.

The administrative check includes:

  • Title Page
  • Anonymized Main Document
  • Turnitin Similarity Report
  • Required declarations
  • OJS metadata
  • Manuscript template and file format
  • Double-blind anonymization
  • References, tables, figures, and supplementary files
  • Language and basic presentation

Administratively incomplete submissions may be returned to the author for technical correction before scientific screening.

Step 2. Initial Editorial Screening

An editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.

The screening considers:

  • Alignment with the current Focus and Scope
  • Correct selection of article type
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Public-health or population-health relevance
  • Methodological plausibility
  • Research and publication ethics
  • Transparency declarations
  • Compliance with applicable reporting guidelines
  • Quality of writing and presentation
  • Suitability for independent external review

Possible decisions at this stage are Return for Technical Correction, Desk Reject, Revise Before Review, or Send for Review.

Step 3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts approved for external review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewer selection considers:

  • Subject and methodological expertise
  • Relevant scholarly publication record
  • Absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest
  • Institutional independence from the authors where reasonably possible
  • Ability to complete a timely and substantive review
  • Previous reviewer performance and review quality

A third or additional reviewer may be invited when specialized expertise is required, reviewer recommendations materially conflict, or the editor needs further evidence.

Step 4. Double-Blind External Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and sufficiently detailed comments.

Reviewer reports should distinguish between essential scientific concerns, recommended improvements, and optional suggestions. Reviewers must not request irrelevant citations or changes intended primarily to increase citations to themselves, the journal, or another publication.

Step 5. Revision and Author Response

When revision is requested, authors must submit:

  • A clean revised manuscript
  • A marked version showing changes when requested
  • A detailed point-by-point response to editor and reviewer comments
  • Updated declarations and supplementary documents where applicable
  • An updated reporting checklist when requested

Authors must respond respectfully and specifically to every comment. When a recommendation is not followed, the response must provide a clear scientific, methodological, ethical, or practical justification.

Step 6. Reassessment and Additional Review

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the assigned editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers. The reassessment route depends on the decision category, extent of revision, methodological complexity, and unresolved concerns.

Step 7. Editorial Decision

The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical information, reporting compliance, and the complete editorial history. The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor issues the editorial decision. More than one review or revision round may be required.

Step 8. Post-Acceptance Quality Control

Only manuscripts receiving a formal Accept decision proceed to production. Post-acceptance processing may include:

  • Authorship and declaration verification
  • Reference and DOI checking
  • Metadata validation
  • Copyediting and language correction
  • Layout preparation
  • Ethics and integrity checks
  • Author proof review
  • Final publication approval

Acceptance does not remove the journal’s authority to correct, delay, suspend, or withdraw publication when serious ethical, authorship, legal, integrity, or production concerns arise before publication.

4. Review Criteria

Review criteria are applied according to the article type, study design, and reporting guideline.

Component Review Considerations
Scope and Contribution Relevance, originality, public-health contribution, importance, and transferability.
Title and Abstract Clarity, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and appropriate representation of the manuscript.
Introduction Scientific context, evidence base, research gap, rationale, objective, and hypothesis where applicable.
Methods Design appropriateness, sampling, measurement, validity, reproducibility, analysis, bias control, and reporting compliance.
Research Ethics Ethics approval, consent, privacy, registration, participant protection, and responsible research conduct.
Results Accuracy, completeness, internal consistency, analytical integrity, uncertainty, and appropriate presentation.
Discussion Interpretation, comparison with evidence, plausibility, limitations, implications, and avoidance of overstatement.
Conclusion Consistency with the objective and findings, proportionality, and absence of unsupported claims.
References Accuracy, relevance, balance, currency, completeness, and absence of inappropriate citation practices.
Presentation Structure, readability, language, tables, figures, terminology, and reporting clarity.

5. Additional Criteria for Review Articles

Systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses are additionally evaluated for:

  • Clarity and relevance of the review question
  • Protocol and registration
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Completeness and reproducibility of the search strategy
  • Study-selection and data-extraction procedures
  • Risk-of-bias or critical-appraisal methods
  • Appropriateness of evidence synthesis or meta-analysis
  • Study-selection flow diagram
  • Assessment of evidence limitations
  • Compliance with PRISMA or PRISMA-ScR

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

6.1 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the manuscript, supplementary files, correspondence, and editorial information as confidential. Materials must not be copied, shared, distributed, discussed, or used for personal advantage.

6.2 Objectivity and Respect

Reviews must focus on the scholarly work and must not include personal criticism, discriminatory language, hostile remarks, or unsupported allegations.

6.3 Competence and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and can complete the review within the requested period. Limitations in expertise should be disclosed to the editor.

6.4 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal relationship that could influence or reasonably appear to influence their assessment.

When a conflict may compromise impartiality, the reviewer must decline the assignment or seek guidance from the editor before proceeding.

6.5 Research and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should confidentially alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, or other integrity concerns.

6.6 Citation Recommendations

Suggested references must be directly relevant and necessary to strengthen the manuscript. Reviewers must not pressure authors to cite the reviewer, the journal, its editors, or selected publications for the purpose of increasing citation metrics.

7. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or unpublished research data to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or external tools that do not provide appropriate confidentiality and data protection.

Artificial intelligence must not replace independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and appropriateness of their reports.

Any permitted AI-assisted activity must comply with the journal Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy and applicable privacy, confidentiality, and institutional requirements.

View Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy

8. Author-Suggested Reviewers

The journal may permit authors to suggest or identify potential reviewers. Such suggestions are advisory only. Editors are not required to invite suggested reviewers and independently assess suitability, expertise, institutional relationships, collaboration history, and conflicts of interest.

Authors must not suggest reviewers using false identities, fabricated email addresses, personal email accounts controlled by the authors, close collaborators, supervisors, students, family members, or individuals with disqualifying conflicts.

9. Editorial Decisions and Definitions

Editorial decisions are defined according to the stage at which they are issued. Except for Accept, no decision constitutes a commitment to publish the manuscript.

Before External Peer Review

Return for Technical Correction

The submission is administratively incomplete or does not comply with technical requirements involving metadata, anonymization, required files, declarations, template, formatting, references, similarity report, or language presentation. This is not a rejection and does not confirm scientific suitability.

Desk Reject

The manuscript is declined without external review because it is outside the Focus and Scope, lacks sufficient originality or public-health contribution, has fundamental methodological or reporting weaknesses, presents serious ethical or integrity concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for the journal.

Revise Before Review

The manuscript may become suitable for external review but requires substantive improvement in its scientific framing, methods, reporting, analysis, structure, language, declarations, or reporting-guideline compliance. External review is not guaranteed after revision.

Send for Review

The manuscript has passed administrative and initial editorial screening and is eligible for external peer review. This decision does not imply acceptance or a favorable final outcome.

After External Peer Review

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards and requires no further substantive revision. Copyediting, reference verification, metadata correction, formatting, proofing, or other production changes may still be required.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not fundamentally alter its design, principal analysis, or main conclusions. The revision may be evaluated editorially or returned for external review.

Major Revision

The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial changes to its methods, analysis, results, interpretation, reporting, structure, or presentation. This decision does not guarantee acceptance.

Resubmit for Review

Fundamental reworking, reanalysis, or restructuring is required beyond the scope of a conventional major revision. A substantially revised manuscript may enter a renewed external review round without any presumption of acceptance.

Reject

Following editorial or external assessment, the manuscript is declined because concerns involving validity, originality, scope, ethics, contribution, reporting, analysis, or interpretation are sufficiently serious or cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

10. Editorial Decision Authority

Reviewer reports and recommendations support editorial judgment but do not constitute editorial decisions. Editors may issue a decision that differs from the numerical majority of reviewer recommendations when the complete evidence supports a different conclusion.

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor may seek additional review, methodological advice, statistical assessment, ethical consultation, or clarification when the available evidence is insufficient, inconsistent, or materially conflicting.

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to another qualified editor who can act independently.

11. Similarity Screening

Manuscripts are screened using Turnitin or an equivalent similarity-detection system. The maximum permitted similarity index is 20%.

Similarity reports are assessed contextually. A numerical score alone does not establish plagiarism, originality, or acceptability. Editors consider the location, nature, source, extent, and attribution of matching text.

12. Review Timeliness

The journal seeks to provide timely editorial decisions while preserving the quality and independence of peer review. Review duration may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision quality, ethical questions, and the need for additional expertise.

Published processing-time statistics are descriptive and do not constitute a guarantee for an individual manuscript.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe an editorial decision was based on a material factual error, substantial misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or overlooked evidence.

Disagreement with reviewer judgment alone is not sufficient. Appeals must identify the specific issue and provide supporting evidence. The journal may obtain an independent editorial or methodological assessment before issuing a final response.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, discrimination, coercive citation, or other procedural concerns will be assessed separately from the scientific merits of the manuscript.

14. Editorial Records and Confidentiality

The journal maintains appropriate records of submissions, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, decisions, and revisions in accordance with applicable editorial, institutional, privacy, and record-retention requirements.

Peer review records are confidential and are not publicly disclosed except when required by law, authorized investigation, institutional process, or an applicable journal policy.

The peer review process supports publication of rigorous, ethical, transparent, and relevant public-health research.

Author Guidelines Reporting Guidelines Publication Ethics