Peer Review Process

Jurnal Persada Husada Indonesia (JPHI) employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, and academic contribution of every manuscript considered for publication. Under this review model, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process, thereby promoting fairness, impartiality, and academic integrity.

All submitted manuscripts must represent original work, must not have been previously published, and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Every manuscript undergoes the following editorial and peer review procedures.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation conducted by the Editorial Office. The screening aims to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of JPHI.
  • Complies with the journal's author guidelines and formatting requirements.
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality for peer review.
  • Adheres to publication ethics.
  • Successfully passes plagiarism screening using similarity detection software.

Manuscripts failing to satisfy the journal's editorial or ethical requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and scientific significance.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Clarity of research objectives.
  • Methodological appropriateness and scientific rigor.
  • Validity and reliability of data analysis.
  • Quality of interpretation and discussion.
  • Consistency and validity of conclusions.
  • Organization, academic writing quality, language, and references.
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

Following the evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

4. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and submit a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation by the Editor and, when necessary, be returned to the reviewers for additional assessment.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests exclusively with the Editor, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the revised manuscript, and the manuscript's compliance with the journal's editorial policies and scientific standards.

6. Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, metadata verification, DOI registration, and final quality control before publication in the scheduled issue of the journal.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to individuals who are not directly involved in the editorial process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may influence the objectivity of the review process. Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the evaluation of the manuscript.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.
  • Complete the review within the designated review period.
  • Identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, or other ethical concerns.
  • Declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Refrain from using unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Review Timeline

Peer Review Model Double-Blind Peer Review
Number of Reviewers Minimum of two independent reviewers
Initial Editorial Screening 1–7 days
Peer Review Process 3–6 weeks
Revision by Authors 1–4 weeks (depending on revision category)
Final Editorial Decision Approximately 1 week after revision submission
Plagiarism Screening Conducted before peer review using similarity detection software.

Jurnal Persada Husada Indonesia (JPHI) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and ethical peer review process in accordance with internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing. The journal strives to ensure that every published article makes a meaningful contribution to the advancement of health sciences and related disciplines through an objective and high-quality editorial process.