Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Preventif: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat applies peer review to assess the scientific quality, relevance, clarity, and integrity of submitted manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and compliance with journal policies.

  1. Review Model

The journal uses single-blind peer review. Reviewers can access the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Research and review manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening undergo evaluation by at least two reviewers before acceptance. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision; they do not constitute the final decision.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks each submission for:

• Relevance to the journal’s objectives and scope.
• Suitability of the manuscript type.
• Originality and potential scientific contribution.
• Adequacy of the research or review methods.
• Completeness and clarity of reporting.
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines and applicable template.
• Ethical approval, consent, and relevant declarations, where applicable.
• Textual similarity and possible overlap with existing publications.

Similarity reports are interpreted by editors in context. A similarity percentage alone does not establish or exclude plagiarism.

Manuscripts may be returned for preliminary revision or rejected without external review when they do not meet the journal’s requirements. Passing initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

  1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise and the manuscript’s subject and methods. The journal seeks reviewers who can provide independent, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

Reviewers must disclose relationships that could affect their impartiality. They should decline an invitation when they lack suitable expertise, cannot complete the assessment within the agreed period, or have a conflict of interest.

Authors may suggest reviewers or identify individuals with potential conflicts, providing reasons. The editors retain responsibility for reviewer selection and are not required to use suggested reviewers.

  1. Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• The importance and clarity of the research question.
• Originality and contribution to public health knowledge.
• Appropriateness and transparency of the methods.
• Adequacy of data analysis and presentation.
• Consistency between results, interpretation, and conclusions.
• Recognition of limitations and avoidance of unsupported claims.
• Relevance and accuracy of references.
• Ethical considerations and reporting completeness.
• Clarity of language, tables, and figures.

For review articles, assessment also considers the literature identification and selection methods, appraisal where applicable, and transparency of evidence synthesis.

  1. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

• Acceptance.
• Minor revision.
• Major revision.
• Rejection.

Recommendations must be supported by specific comments. Reviewers should distinguish essential changes from suggestions and must not request irrelevant citations or changes for personal benefit.

  1. Editorial Decisions

The handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, and author responses. The Editor-in-Chief has responsibility for the final acceptance decision, except when a conflict of interest requires independent handling.

When recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek clarification, obtain an additional review, or reach a reasoned decision based on the substance of the reports.

The process is not determined by a simple majority vote. Acceptance requires the editor to be satisfied that significant scientific and ethical concerns have been adequately addressed.

  1. Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

• A revised manuscript.
• A point-by-point response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.
• Clear identification of changes, as requested.

Authors may disagree with a recommendation when they provide a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence.

Revision deadlines will be stated in the decision letter. Extension requests should be submitted before the deadline. Depending on the extent of revision, the editor may assess the changes directly or return the manuscript to reviewers.

Further revision may be requested. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

  1. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and review reports must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, involve another person in the review, or upload confidential content to external AI tools or other services without explicit authorization from the journal.

Unpublished information must not be used for personal research or other private benefit. Suspected ethical problems should be reported confidentially to the editor.

  1. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts and withdraw from handling affected manuscripts.

Submissions authored by an editor or editorial board member will be assigned to an uninvolved editor and undergo the same scientific assessment as other submissions. The author-editor must not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities, or influence the decision on their own manuscript.

  1. Processing Time and Communication

Processing time varies according to manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the complexity of issues raised. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

Authors may contact the editorial office about manuscript status. Review invitations, reports, revisions, and decisions should be recorded through OJS to maintain a traceable editorial history.

  1. Appeals and Integrity Concerns

Authors may appeal a decision by explaining a specific scientific misunderstanding or procedural concern and providing supporting evidence.

Appeals should be sent to:

preventifjournal.fkm@gmail.com

Appeals will be assessed by an editor without a conflict of interest and may involve additional independent advice. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.

Suspected misconduct will be handled under the journal’s research misconduct procedures. Manuscript processing may be paused while a concern is examined.

  1. Final Acceptance and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and proofreading. Authors must check proofs carefully and report errors before publication. Substantial changes introduced at this stage may require further editorial assessment.

Payment of publication fees does not guarantee acceptance or influence reviewer recommendations and editorial decisions.