Promotif: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat (PJKM) applies peer review to assess the originality, methodological quality, ethical integrity, clarity, relevance, and public health contribution of submitted manuscripts. Peer review supports editorial decision-making but does not replace the independent judgment and accountability of the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor.
Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated through a double-anonymous peer review. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another as far as reasonably possible. PJKM normally seeks reports from at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.
Peer Review at a Glance
Double Anonymous
Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other.
Independent Review
Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and impartiality.
At Least Two Reviewers
Two reports are normally sought before a substantive decision.
Editorial Decision
The final decision rests with the authorised editor.
Editorial and Peer Review Workflow
1
Submission
The author submits the manuscript and all required files through the OJS submission system.
2
Technical Screening
Editorial staff check file completeness, author metadata, anonymisation, manuscript structure, declarations, and compliance with basic submission requirements.
3
Initial Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor assesses scope, relevance, originality, scientific plausibility, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and overall suitability.
4
Similarity Screening
The manuscript is screened using Turnitin or another suitable similarity-detection system. Editors interpret the report contextually rather than relying on a percentage alone.
5
Handling Editor and Reviewer Selection
A qualified editor is assigned and independent reviewers are invited based on expertise, availability, absence of relevant conflicts, and review quality.
6
Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments intended for the authors.
7
Editorial Decision
The editor considers the reports, manuscript quality, ethical issues, and journal priorities before issuing a decision.
8
Revision and Re-evaluation
When revision is invited, authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. The revision may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially.
9
Final Decision
The authorised editor makes the final decision after evaluating the revised manuscript, responses, and any additional reviewer advice.
10
Copyediting, Proofreading, and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to editorial production. Acceptance does not exempt the article from final checks, author proof review, or correction of production errors.
Initial Editorial Screening
Before external peer review, editors assess whether the submission meets essential editorial requirements.
Alignment with focus and scope Completeness of files and metadata Appropriate study design and reporting Ethics approval and consent Originality and scholarly contribution Language clarity and readability Reference quality and relevance Required declarations and disclosures
Desk decision: A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside the journal's scope, methodologically or ethically unsuitable, insufficiently original, seriously incomplete, poorly reported, or unlikely to meet the journal's editorial standard.
Similarity and Originality Screening
PJKM uses Turnitin or another suitable similarity-detection system as an editorial screening aid. A similarity percentage is not treated as an automatic measure of plagiarism. Editors examine the source, location, extent, and nature of overlap and distinguish legitimate material—such as references, standard terminology, properly cited quotations, or limited methodological phrasing—from unattributed copying, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, or other misconduct.
Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Originality and Relevance
Does the manuscript address a meaningful public health question and add value to existing knowledge?
Scientific and Methodological Quality
Are the design, population, sampling, measures, procedures, and analyses appropriate and sufficiently described?
Statistical and Analytical Rigor
Are the analytical methods suitable, correctly applied, and transparently reported?
Ethical Compliance
Are approval, consent, confidentiality, registration, and other ethical requirements adequately addressed?
Results and Interpretation
Are findings presented clearly, interpreted cautiously, and supported by the data?
Discussion and Limitations
Does the discussion engage appropriately with prior evidence and acknowledge important limitations?
Clarity and Organisation
Is the manuscript coherent, readable, logically structured, and appropriately concise?
References and Reporting Standards
Are sources relevant and accurate, and is an appropriate reporting guideline followed where applicable?
Public Health Contribution
Are the implications for policy, practice, programmes, services, or future research clearly justified?
Editorial Decisions
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to final editorial and production checks.
Minor Revision
Limited clarification or correction is required without major redesign or reanalysis.
Major Revision
Substantial changes are required. Invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
Reject
The manuscript is unsuitable because of scope, quality, originality, ethics, validity, or other substantive concerns.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor may reach a decision that differs from one or more reviewer recommendations when this is justified by the evidence, journal policy, additional expert advice, or editorial assessment.
Revision Requirements
Authors invited to revise must submit a clean revised manuscript, a marked or highlighted version when requested, and a detailed point-by-point response indicating how each editorial and reviewer comment was addressed. Where a recommendation is not followed, the authors must provide a clear scholarly justification. Material changes to authorship, methods, analyses, results, or ethical declarations must be disclosed explicitly.
Target Editorial Timeline
| Stage |
Target Time |
Primary Responsibility |
| Technical screening |
2–5 days |
Editorial staff |
| Initial editorial assessment |
3–7 days |
Editor |
| Reviewer invitation |
5–10 days |
Handling Editor |
| Peer review |
2–4 weeks |
Reviewers |
| Author revision |
1–4 weeks |
Authors |
| Final editorial decision |
Up to 1 week |
Authorised Editor |
| Copyediting and production |
1–2 weeks |
Editorial production team |
Timeline note: These are operational targets, not guaranteed deadlines. Review duration may vary because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, requests for specialist assessment, author response time, ethical concerns, or the need for additional review.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and author responses are confidential. Reviewers must not share, quote, retain, or use manuscript content for personal advantage. Authors are responsible for removing identifying details from the anonymised manuscript. Although the journal takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed when a manuscript contains self-identifying citations, unique datasets, trial registrations, preprints, or other publicly recognisable information.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors
Editors must recuse themselves when personal, professional, financial, institutional, or intellectual interests could affect impartiality.
Reviewers
Reviewers must disclose relevant interests and decline assignments where objectivity may reasonably be questioned.
Authors
Authors must disclose funding and all interests that could be perceived to influence the research or its presentation.
Special Editorial Circumstances
Editorial Board Submissions
A manuscript submitted by an editor or editorial board member must be handled independently by an editor with no relevant conflict. The submitting editor must not participate in review or decision-making.
Divergent Reviews
When reviewer recommendations conflict materially, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional review, or make a reasoned decision based on the substance of the reports.
Ethics or Integrity Concerns
Peer review may be paused while the journal seeks clarification, supporting records, institutional information, or specialist ethical or statistical advice.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe a material error, misunderstanding, undisclosed conflict, procedural irregularity, or demonstrably incorrect interpretation affected the outcome. An appeal must be submitted respectfully, identify the specific issue, and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement with a decision alone is not sufficient. The journal may assign the appeal to an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Filing an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently by the authorised editors. Acceptance or rejection must not be influenced by article processing charges, institutional relationships, sponsorship, advertising, political interests, author status, or pressure from the publisher or journal owner.
Standards and Reporting Guidance
PJKM's peer review procedures are informed by recognised publication-ethics principles and reporting standards. Authors and reviewers should use the reporting guideline appropriate to the manuscript design.
Policy review: PJKM may revise this policy periodically to reflect changes in editorial practice, publication ethics, technology, reporting standards, or journal operations. The version and last-updated date shown above identify the policy currently in force.
PJKM is committed to peer review that is rigorous, fair, confidential, constructive, timely, and independent.
