Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Kesehatan dr. Soebandi (JKDS) must follow the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript template, and publication ethics. Submitted manuscripts must be original, scientifically relevant, and free from plagiarism or duplicate submission.

JKDS implements the following peer review process:

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript will first be screened by the editorial team to assess its suitability with the journal’s focus and scope, manuscript format, originality, academic quality, and compliance with submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before external peer review.

2. Assignment to Section Editor and Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to a section editor or handling editor. The editor will evaluate the manuscript’s relevance, novelty, methodological clarity, ethical compliance, and readiness for peer review.

Eligible manuscripts will then be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

JKDS uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity of results, discussion, references, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely comments to assist editors in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the manuscript.

4. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not use unpublished materials for personal advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.

5. Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is made after the editor receives and evaluates the reviewers’ reports. If there are significant differences between reviewers’ recommendations, the section editor may consult the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board before making a decision.

Editorial decisions may include:

  • Accepted with minor revisions;
  • Reconsidered after major revisions;
  • Resubmitted for review; or
  • Rejected.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s originality, scientific quality, relevance to the journal scope, ethical compliance, and reviewers’ recommendations.

6. Revision by Authors

Manuscripts requiring revision will be returned to the authors. Authors must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments within the specified timeframe.

Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed. If the revision is insufficient, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for further revision.

7. Re-Evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the reviewers for further assessment. The editorial team will assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.

8. Final Decision

After the revision and re-evaluation process is completed, the Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board will make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.

The final decision is based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and the quality of the revised manuscript.

9. Copyediting, Proofreading, and Similarity Check

Accepted manuscripts will proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final checking. Authors will be asked to confirm the accuracy of the final version, including the title, author identity, affiliation, correspondence information, content, tables, figures, references, copyright, and license statement.

Before publication, the manuscript may be checked for similarity to ensure compliance with the journal’s plagiarism policy.

10. Publication

Manuscripts that have completed the editorial, review, revision, copyediting, proofreading, and final checking stages will proceed to publication. The published article will be assigned a DOI and made available on the JKDS website.

11. Review Timeline

The peer review process usually takes approximately 6–8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript quality, the complexity of the review, and the extent of revisions required.