All papers submitted to Public Health of Indonesia undergo double blind and external peer review. In the double-blind review process neither the reviewers nor the authors know the identity of each author. This enables unbiased and accurate review of the manuscript. In all cases, reviewers will be asked to declare any conflict of interest based on the contents of the manuscript.
After a manuscript is submitted, it is reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board. If the manuscript passes the editorial review, it is sent to two external reviewers for double-blind peer review.
The reviewers are selected on the basis of their area of expertise and interests, if the reviewer accepts the offer to review the manuscript, they will be sent the complete manuscript and a Manuscript Review Form.
In all cases, reviewers will be asked to declare any conflict of interest based on the contents of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewers are requested to decline to review the manuscript.
Please provide an objective critical assessment of the manuscript about the concept of the study, relevance in relation to current scientific knowledge, scientific content, language, and grammar. You will be asked to make a recommendation for publishing the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendations.
If you believe that the manuscript needs changes for improvement before it is accepted for publication, please make the suggestions on how to improve it. If the comments are negative please help the authors in improving their manuscript by explaining weaknesses in scientific content or language. Any offensive language in the comments cannot be tolerated.
Based on the reviewer's comments the assigned editor will take a decision about the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The editor may decide to: 1) accept the manuscript without revisions, 2) invite authors to resubmit the manuscript after minor or major revisions while the final decision is kept pending, or 3) reject the manuscript.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
COPE has published its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, outlining "the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process." These can be accessed here.
In addition, peer reviewers should:
- only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess promptly;
- respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;
- not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others;
- declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
- not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
- be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments;
- acknowledge that peer review is essentially a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner;
- provide PHI with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
- recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
Cases of suspected misconduct
Allegations of misconduct or cases of suspected misconduct are investigated in accordance with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines as far as is practicable.