Review Process Policy

Review Process Policy (Peer Review Policy)

Journal of Gizi dan Kesehatan (JGK)

  1. Peer Review Policy

The Jurnal Gizi dan Kesehatan (JGK) is committed to maintaining the quality, scientific integrity, and credibility of published research through a transparent, objective, and independent peer review process.

All research manuscripts submitted to JGK undergo editorial screening and, when considered suitable for further evaluation, are assessed by independent reviewers with relevant expertise in midwifery, maternal and child health, reproductive health, neonatal care, women's health, and related healthcare disciplines.

JGK adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.

The peer review process is intended to evaluate scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and the contribution of submitted manuscripts to the development of evidence-based midwifery and maternal and child healthcare.

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor before entering the peer review process.

The initial screening includes an evaluation of:

  1. Relevance to the aims and scope of JGK.
  2. Compliance with the journal's manuscript preparation guidelines.
  3. Originality and potential scientific contribution.
  4. Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.
  5. Completeness of ethical approval and informed consent information, where applicable.
  6. Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
  7. Similarity screening to identify potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap.
  8. Completeness of required manuscript components, including declarations of funding, authorship, and conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected before external peer review.

Decisions at this stage are based on the manuscript's scientific and editorial suitability rather than the authors' institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, or professional status.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional expertise.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review system to minimize potential bias and support impartial assessment.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not receive identifying information about the authors.
  • Authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.
  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact the authors.
  • Authors must prepare anonymized manuscripts by removing names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information from the review file.
  • Editorial correspondence and reviewer reports are treated as confidential information.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, publication record, independence, and ability to provide a timely and objective assessment.

Where necessary, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to resolve conflicting recommendations or evaluate specialized methodological concerns.

  1. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

The editorial team appoints reviewers whose qualifications are relevant to the subject and methodology of the submitted manuscript.

For studies involving midwifery interventions, maternal health services, neonatal outcomes, reproductive healthcare, or community-based health programs, reviewers should possess relevant clinical, academic, or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
  2. Assess manuscripts according to established scientific and ethical standards.
  3. Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials.
  4. Declare potential conflicts of interest before accepting review assignments.
  5. Complete reviews within the agreed period.
  6. Provide clear recommendations supported by scientific reasoning.
  7. Identify methodological limitations, inaccurate interpretations, or unsupported conclusions.
  8. Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, or serious ethical concerns.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research, professional advantage, or other unauthorized purposes.

  1. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

The manuscript should present original findings, valid scientific interpretations, or meaningful contributions to existing knowledge in midwifery and maternal and child health.

  1. Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The manuscript should address topics relevant to nutrition including clinical nutrition, community nutrition and food service, food technology, food product development, or other related disciplines.

  1. Research Methodology

The research design, sampling procedures, instruments, interventions, data collection, and analytical methods must be appropriate for the research objectives.

  1. Ethical Considerations

Research involving human participants must demonstrate compliance with applicable ethical standards, including ethical approval or exemption and informed consent where required.

Particular attention is given to studies involving pregnant women, newborns, infants, and other populations requiring additional ethical safeguards.

  1. Results and Data Interpretation

Results must be presented accurately and systematically. Conclusions should be supported by the findings without exaggeration or unjustified causal interpretations.

  1. Discussion and Clinical Implications

The discussion should critically interpret the findings in relation to the relevant scientific literature and explain their implications for nutrition and health, both for individuals, groups and institutions.

  1. Quality of Scientific Writing

The manuscript should be logically organized, clearly written, adequately referenced, and consistent with the journal's formatting requirements.

  1. Peer Review Stages

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

Stage 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the JGK Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform in accordance with the journal's Author Guidelines.

Stage 2: Editorial Screening

The editorial team evaluates the manuscript's scope, completeness, originality, and compliance with publication ethics.

Stage 3: Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.

Stage 4: Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit written comments and recommendations through the OJS platform.

Stage 5: Editorial Assessment

The assigned editor evaluates the reviewer reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

Stage 6: Manuscript Revision

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Stage 7: Re-evaluation

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed directly by the editor, depending on the extent of revisions required.

Stage 8: Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor makes the final decision based on the manuscript's scientific quality, reviewer recommendations, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.

Stage 9: Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication procedures.

  1. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements and is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary technical or production corrections.

  1. Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited improvements, such as clarification of methods, refinement of the discussion, correction of references, or improvement of scientific writing.

  1. Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial changes involving research methodology, data analysis, interpretation of findings, manuscript structure, or other significant scientific issues.

  1. Reject Submission

The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards, or its limitations cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

  1. Peer Review Timeline

JMCHS aims to provide a timely and efficient peer review process while maintaining scientific quality.

The following timelines are proposed as editorial targets:

  • Initial editorial screening: 7–14 days after submission.
  • Reviewer evaluation: approximately 2–4 weeks following acceptance of the review invitation.
  • Author revision: 14 days for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions.
  • Additional review: approximately 1–3 weeks when required.
  • Final editorial decision: following satisfactory completion of the assessment and revision process.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the need for further evaluation.

Authors will be notified of editorial decisions and revision requirements through the OJS platform.

  1. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving revision requests must address the comments provided by reviewers and editors.

Revised submissions should include:

  1. A revised manuscript incorporating the requested changes.
  2. A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
  3. Clear explanations for recommendations that have not been implemented.
  4. Additional supporting information or analyses where requested and appropriate.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review to determine whether the concerns have been adequately addressed.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

  1. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

All individuals involved in the editorial and peer review process must comply with recognized publication ethics standards.

Editors and reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, research data, reviewer comments, and editorial correspondence.

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, ethical misconduct, or manipulation of the peer review process will be investigated according to the journal's publication ethics policies.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or unpublished research data to publicly accessible artificial intelligence systems or other external services without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate safeguards.

The journal is committed to maintaining editorial independence and protecting the confidentiality of all parties involved in the review process.

  1. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal relationships that could influence their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline assignments when significant conflicts of interest exist.

Editors who have conflicts of interest concerning a submitted manuscript must delegate editorial responsibility to another qualified editor.

Editorial decisions must be based on scientific merit, research integrity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  1. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe an editorial decision was based on a substantial factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or other legitimate concern.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office and should include a clear explanation supported by relevant evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest will evaluate the appeal and may request additional expert assessment when necessary.

An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration or acceptance of a manuscript.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, or publication ethics will be assessed fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's established policies.

  1. Editorial Independence

JGK maintains editorial independence in all decisions concerning manuscript evaluation and publication.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific validity, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

The editorial process must not be influenced by institutional interests, commercial relationships, personal considerations, or other inappropriate external pressures.

  1. Transparency and Quality Assurance

JGK is committed to maintaining a transparent and accountable peer review system.

The editorial team periodically evaluates reviewer performance, the quality of review reports, editorial decision-making, and manuscript processing procedures.

Documentation of review assignments, reviewer reports, author revisions, and editorial decisions is maintained within the journal's editorial management system in accordance with applicable confidentiality and record-retention requirements.

The journal may revise its peer review procedures as necessary to maintain consistency with developments in scholarly publishing and publication ethics.

  1. References
  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
  3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
  4. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Policies and Resources on Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics. https://wame.org/