PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

Every submission to Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan Masyarakat, abbreviated as SEHATMAS, goes through editorial screening and peer review before it is published. The journal uses double blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Subject experts assess the scientific merit and the originality of the work, its relevance to public health and the health sciences, and its fit with the scope of the journal.

Overview of the Review Process

Stage	What happens	Typical timing
1. Initial evaluation	The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript.	Before reviewers are contacted
2. Assignment of reviewers	The handling editor selects and invites independent reviewers.	After the initial evaluation
3. Review	Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision.	Usually 2 weeks
4. Decision	The editors decide to accept the manuscript, to ask for a minor or a major revision, or to reject it.	Notification of acceptance normally takes about 1 to 2 months from submission
5. Revision	Authors revise the manuscript, and the revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewers.	2 weeks
6. Publication	The layout is prepared, the acceptance letter is sent, and the article is published in an upcoming issue.	After acceptance, in an upcoming issue

These timings are estimates and not guarantees. They depend on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. The planned issue dates are shown on the Publication Frequency page.

1. Initial Evaluation

When a manuscript is submitted, the editors first check the following points.

Check	What is examined
Scope and focus	Whether the topic fits the focus and scope of the journal.
Format and style	Compliance with the Author Guidelines and the Manuscript Preparation instructions. A manuscript that does not comply is returned to the authors for reformatting.
Originality	A similarity check is carried out before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, as described in the Plagiarism Policy. A high similarity result leads to an examination by the editor and does not mean automatic rejection.
Research ethics	For research with human participants, the statements on permission and informed consent, and the ethical clearance where it is required, as described in Publication Ethics.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

The Editor in Chief assigns each manuscript to a handling editor. The handling editor selects and invites independent reviewers who have relevant expertise. Reviewers accept or decline the invitation on the basis of their expertise, their availability, and any conflict of interest. Researchers who wish to review for the journal can register through the Call for Reviewer form, and the current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page.

2.1 Anonymity

Under double blind review, the identity of the authors is withheld from the reviewers before the review, and the identity of the reviewers is withheld from the authors. The comments of the reviewers are sent to the authors anonymously.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors who have a conflict of interest decline or withdraw from the evaluation, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy. A manuscript that is submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved in it, and the author takes no part in its evaluation or in the decision.

3. Review

Reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript. The standard review period is about two weeks. Reviewers recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected, and they give constructive comments to the authors. The table below shows what reviewers examine in each part of a manuscript.

Part of the manuscript	What reviewers examine
Title and abstract	Whether the title is accurate, and whether the abstract and the keywords convey the contribution of the study.
Introduction	The background, the current state of knowledge, the knowledge gap, the novelty, and a clear research question or objective.
Research method	An appropriate and replicable design, the population and the sample, the instruments, and the analysis. The validity and the reliability of the instruments, and the permission, informed consent, and ethical clearance where they are required.
Results and discussion	Whether the results are correct and clearly presented, how they relate to earlier research and theory, and their implications for health practice.
Conclusion	Whether the conclusion is supported by the results and answers the research question.
References	Whether the references are accurate, current, correctly styled, and include the relevant earlier work.
Ethics and integrity	Any sign of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns about research integrity.

Confidentiality. Reviewers must keep the manuscripts confidential and must not upload them to generative AI tools. Reviewers may use such tools only to improve the language of their own review reports, and they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, the judgment, and the integrity of their reviews, as described in the Generative AI Policies.

4. Decision

The editors make the decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers. The Editor in Chief sends the acceptance letter to the authors of an accepted manuscript. The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are communicated to the authors. The outcome is one of the following.

Decision	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is accepted and goes to layout and publication.
Minor revision	Small changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted.
Major revision	Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.
Reject	The manuscript is not accepted for publication in SEHATMAS.

Fees never influence the decision. Decisions rest on the quality and the relevance of the work, as stated in Publication Ethics. The charges of the journal are listed on the Author Fees page.

5. Revision Process

When revision is needed, the Managing Editor returns the manuscript to the authors, who have two weeks to resubmit it. Authors are asked to submit the revised manuscript together with a response that answers each comment of the reviewers. The handling editor sends the revised manuscript back to the reviewers. Authors who need more time should inform the editors before the deadline.

6. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was mistaken or unfair may write to the editorial office at jurnal.sehatmas@gmail.com with the subject line "Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]".

An appeal needs clear reasons, evidence, and a direct response to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration.

An editor who is not involved in the manuscript examines the appeal and may seek another opinion. The outcome of the appeal is final, and each manuscript may be appealed only once. Concerns about misconduct in the review process are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

7. Publication

After a manuscript is accepted, the Managing Editor handles the layout, and the article is published in an upcoming issue. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments follow the Post Publication Discussion procedure.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review

The full duties of editors, reviewers, and authors are set out in Publication Ethics. The table summarizes the commitments that apply to peer review.

Commitment	What it means in practice
Confidentiality	Information about manuscripts and reviews is kept private.
Objectivity and impartiality	Reviews are based on the merit of the work, free from bias and conflicts of interest, and offer constructive feedback.
Timeliness	Manuscripts are reviewed within a reasonable time, and authors are informed of the status of their manuscripts.
Transparency and accountability	Reviewers give reasons for their comments, and editorial decisions are made fairly.
Conflicts of interest	Editors and reviewers do not evaluate work in which they have an interest, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.
Plagiarism and misconduct	Suspected plagiarism and misconduct are reported promptly and handled as described in Allegations of Misconduct.