Peer Review

1. General Statement

The Journal for Quality in Public Health (JQPH), published by Universitas STRADA Indonesia, is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, editorial integrity, transparency, and publication ethics.

Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial process. It provides an independent assessment of the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process assists the editors in making informed editorial decisions and provides authors with constructive feedback to improve their work.

JQPH applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process, subject to the limitations inherent in scholarly review.

All manuscripts considered for external peer review are evaluated by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and quality of reporting of the submitted manuscript.

JQPH does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript. Submission, payment of any applicable publication fee, or the professional status of an author does not influence the editorial decision.

2. Types of Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review

JQPH welcomes scholarly contributions relevant to public health and related disciplines, including original research articles, systematic reviews, and case studies or case reports where applicable to the journal's author guidelines.

Manuscripts considered for publication undergo editorial assessment and, when appropriate, external peer review. The depth and nature of the assessment may vary according to the manuscript type, research design, and applicable reporting and ethical requirements.

All manuscripts must meet the journal's submission requirements before they can proceed to the relevant editorial assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team or a designated editor.

The purpose of this stage is to assess whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic requirements, including:

Relevance to the aims and scope of JQPH.
Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Originality and appropriate citation of previously published work.
Completeness of the manuscript and required supporting documents.
Appropriate research design, methodology, data presentation, and reporting.
Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements, including ethical approval and informed consent where necessary.
Disclosure of funding sources, conflicts of interest, author contributions, and other required declarations.
Preliminary concerns regarding plagiarism, redundant publication, data integrity, or other publication ethics issues.

The editorial team may use appropriate plagiarism-detection tools and other screening procedures to identify potential concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review. A manuscript that passes the initial screening is not guaranteed acceptance and may proceed to external peer review at the editor's discretion.

4. Double-Blind Peer-Review Process

JQPH uses a double-blind peer-review model to promote impartiality and minimize potential bias related to author identity, institutional affiliation, professional position, or other personal characteristics.

Under this process:

The editorial team removes or conceals identifying information from the manuscript files provided to reviewers, where applicable.
The manuscript is assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise.
The editor selects at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional expertise.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and submit their comments and recommendations to the editor.
The editor assesses the reviewers' reports, considers the scientific quality of the manuscript, and makes an editorial decision.
Reviewers' comments and the editorial decision are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's submission system or official editorial communication channel.

Authors are encouraged to prepare anonymized manuscript files and ensure that identifying information is not inadvertently disclosed in the main manuscript or supplementary files.

Although JQPH takes reasonable steps to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research methods, citations, datasets, or other details make the identities of the parties recognizable.

5. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise, relevant research experience, methodological competence, publication record where applicable, and ability to provide an independent and constructive assessment.

The journal seeks reviewers who can evaluate the manuscript objectively and contribute meaningfully to improving its scientific quality.

Reviewers are expected to:

Assess the manuscript fairly, independently, and objectively.
Evaluate the originality, relevance, scientific contribution, and methodological rigor of the research.
Assess the appropriateness of the study design, sampling procedures, data collection, statistical analysis, and interpretation of findings, as applicable.
Identify weaknesses in the manuscript and provide clear, constructive recommendations.
Assess whether the conclusions are supported by the results and whether limitations are adequately acknowledged.
Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked and flag potentially inappropriate citations.
Raise concerns regarding research ethics, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, or other possible breaches of publication ethics.
Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before undertaking the review.
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated materials.
Submit the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly if an extension is required.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, professional, or financial benefit.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

6. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts using criteria relevant to the manuscript type and research design.

6.1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

Reviewers assess whether the manuscript provides an original, meaningful, and relevant contribution to public health knowledge, policy, practice, education, or research.

6.2. Relevance to the Journal

The manuscript must fall within the aims and scope of JQPH and demonstrate relevance to public health or related fields.

6.3. Scientific and Methodological Quality

Reviewers assess the appropriateness of the research design, sampling methods, data collection procedures, measurement instruments, statistical analyses, and interpretation of findings.

For review articles, reviewers may assess the appropriateness of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection, quality appraisal, synthesis methods, and reporting standards.

6.4. Presentation and Reporting

Reviewers evaluate the clarity, logical structure, completeness, and consistency of the manuscript, including the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, tables, figures, and references.

6.5. Ethical Compliance

Reviewers and editors consider whether the research meets applicable ethical standards, including appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, protection of participants' confidentiality, and responsible reporting of research findings, where relevant.

6.6. Validity of Conclusions

Reviewers assess whether the conclusions are supported by the results, whether alternative interpretations are considered where appropriate, and whether study limitations are adequately discussed.

7. Reviewers' Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision, subject to final editorial checks.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not substantially alter its scientific content.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions to its methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, or scientific argument before it can be reconsidered.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses, falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet publication standards, or has other deficiencies that make it unsuitable for publication.

Reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible editor, who considers the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's scientific merit, the journal's editorial policies, and any relevant ethical concerns.

If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek an additional independent review or make a decision based on the available evidence and expert judgment.

8. Editorial Decisions

Based on the initial screening, peer-review reports, and editorial assessment, JQPH may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any remaining editorial and production requirements.
Accept with Minor Revisions: The manuscript may be accepted after the requested minor changes have been satisfactorily completed.
Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript requires substantial revision and will undergo further editorial assessment or external review before a final decision.
Reject: The manuscript will not be considered for publication in its current form.

A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers, or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revisions.

The editor may reject a manuscript at any stage if substantial concerns arise regarding its scientific quality, suitability, research integrity, or compliance with publication ethics.

Editorial decisions must not be improperly influenced by commercial considerations, personal relationships, institutional pressure, author seniority, or the direction or statistical significance of the research findings.

9. Revision and Resubmission

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit the revised version within the deadline specified in the editorial decision.

The revised submission should include:

A revised manuscript incorporating the requested changes.
A point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments.
A clear explanation and justification for any suggestions that the authors have not adopted.
Updated supporting documents or declarations, where required.

Authors should clearly indicate substantive changes in the revised manuscript using tracked changes or another method specified by the editorial office.

The editor will assess whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. Additional revision rounds may be required when significant issues remain unresolved.

If authors require an extension, they should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline. Manuscripts that are not revised within the specified period may be closed or treated as withdrawn in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

10. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

All manuscripts submitted to JQPH are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript contents, review reports, editorial discussions, or submission status to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not reproduce, distribute, retain for personal use, or otherwise exploit unpublished manuscript material. Confidentiality must also be maintained when handling supplementary files, datasets, and other research materials.

Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate submission, manipulated peer review, unethical research practices, or other concerns regarding research integrity must be reported to the editor.

JQPH will assess such concerns in accordance with its publication ethics policies and may request additional information, suspend the review process, reject the manuscript, or take other appropriate action.

11. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include financial interests, recent research collaboration, close personal relationships, supervisory relationships, institutional interests, academic competition, or other circumstances that could influence the review.

Reviewers who identify a relevant conflict must inform the editor and decline the review when impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained.

Editors must also disclose relevant conflicts and reassign the manuscript to an independent editor when necessary.

Further details are provided in the JQPH Conflict of Interest Policy.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and comply with the journal's policies on artificial intelligence (AI).

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, unpublished data, confidential reviewer reports, or other protected materials to AI tools or external services that have not been authorized by the journal or that cannot adequately protect confidentiality.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must comply with applicable confidentiality, data protection, and journal requirements. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and integrity of their evaluations.

AI tools cannot replace the independent professional judgment of a qualified human reviewer. Reviewers must not rely on AI-generated assessments without critically evaluating their accuracy and appropriateness.

13. Peer-Review Timeline

JQPH aims to process manuscripts in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

The following are indicative targets rather than guaranteed deadlines:

Initial editorial screening: approximately 7–14 calendar days after submission.
External peer review: approximately 2–4 weeks after reviewers accept the invitation, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Author revision: the deadline will be specified in the editorial decision.
Final editorial decision: as soon as reasonably practicable after the required reviews and revisions have been completed.

These timelines may vary depending on the availability of qualified reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for additional reviews, and the responsiveness of the authors.

JQPH endeavors to communicate significant delays to the corresponding author when appropriate. Authors may contact the editorial office through the official journal communication channels to inquire about the status of their submissions.

14. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal must include:

The manuscript title and submission identification number.
The editorial decision being appealed.
A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.
Supporting evidence or references relevant to the appeal.

Disagreement with a reviewer's opinion alone is not sufficient grounds for overturning an editorial decision. Appeals must identify substantive issues that could reasonably affect the fairness or validity of the decision.

Appeals will be assessed by the editor-in-chief or an appropriately independent editorial representative. Where a conflict of interest exists, the appeal will be assigned to an independent decision-maker.

The journal may uphold the original decision, reconsider the manuscript, seek an additional independent assessment, or take another appropriate action. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, confidentiality, or publication ethics will be handled fairly and in accordance with the journal's relevant policies.

15. Recognition of Reviewers

JQPH recognizes the valuable contribution of peer reviewers to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.

The journal may acknowledge reviewers' contributions through appropriate forms of recognition, such as annual acknowledgments, reviewer certificates, or other initiatives, provided that such recognition does not compromise reviewer confidentiality or the integrity of the peer-review process.

Reviewer recognition does not imply preferential treatment in future editorial decisions and does not affect the independence of the review process.

16. Final Editorial Authority

The editor-in-chief retains ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions and the content published in JQPH.

Peer-review recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine acceptance or rejection. The editor-in-chief may consider additional scientific, ethical, legal, and editorial factors when making a final decision.

All editorial decisions must be made in accordance with the journal's aims and scope, publication ethics policies, and commitment to academic integrity.