Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Analis Kesehatan uses peer review to assess the scientific quality, relevance, methodological validity, and integrity of submitted manuscripts.

The journal’s review model, including whether author and reviewer identities are concealed, must be stated consistently on the official journal website. If the journal uses double-blind peer review, the following requirements apply.

8.1. Reviewer qualifications and acceptance of assignments

Reviewers should have expertise relevant to the manuscript, be able to assess the relevant methodological aspects, and be willing to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must inform the editor if they:

  • Lack sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript.
  • Have a conflict of interest.
  • Cannot complete the review on time.
  • Identify suspected ethical misconduct or a serious problem with the data.

8.2. Conducting the review

Reviewers are expected to assess:

  • The novelty and scientific contribution of the work.
  • The alignment of the research objectives, design, methods, and analysis.
  • The accuracy of the presentation of results and discussion.
  • The consistency of the conclusions with the data presented.
  • The adequacy of references and accuracy of citations.
  • Compliance with research ethics, participant protection, and data management requirements.
  • The clarity of the writing and the manuscript’s fit with the journal’s scope.

Reviewer comments must be objective, professional, specific, and constructive. Criticism should focus on the manuscript and scientific evidence, not on the author personally.

8.3. Confidentiality and integrity

Reviewers must not distribute the manuscript under review, use unpublished ideas or data for personal benefit, or contact authors directly about the manuscript without the editor’s permission.

Reviewers must not request citations to particular works unless the citations are relevant and scientifically justified. Requests intended to increase the reviewer’s or journal’s citation counts improperly are unacceptable.

8.4. Reviewer recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Acceptance with minor revisions.
  • Major revision and further review.
  • Rejection.

Reviewer recommendations are scholarly advice. The editor makes the final decision, taking into account manuscript quality, review reports, the journal’s scope, and editorial policy.

8.5. Manuscripts submitted by editors or parties with conflicts of interest

If an editor or editorial board member is an author, the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor without a conflict of interest. The review process must follow the same standards applied to other manuscripts.

These guidelines follow COPE principles of objectivity, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest management, and reviewers’ professional responsibility.