Simanta Journal of Health Studies is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor through a transparent, fair, and thorough peer review process. Below is a detailed description of the peer review workflow: 

1. Submission and Initial Screening
2. Manuscript Submission:

 Authors submit their manuscripts via the journal's online submission system. Each submission must include all necessary components, such as the title page, abstract, main text, references, tables, and figures, as well as any supplementary materials. 

2. Editorial Office Screening:

 The editorial office conducts an initial review to ensure: 

1. The manuscript adheres to the journal’s Author Guidelines.
2. The content is within the scope of the journal.
3. There are no ethical or administrative issues (e.g., plagiarism).

 Submissions failing to meet these requirements may be rejected or returned to the authors for correction. 

 

2. Assignment of Editor

• Editor-in-Chief Assignment:

 The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript’s relevance and assigns it to a handling editor with expertise in the subject area. 

• Desk Rejection:

 If the manuscript lacks originality, scientific merit, or relevance to the journal’s scope, the Editor-in-Chief may reject it without peer review. Authors will be notified promptly with an explanation. 

 

3. Reviewer Selection

• The handling editor selects two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers are chosen based on their qualifications, publication record, and familiarity with the subject area.
• Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review invitation.

 

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning: 

• Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors.

 This ensures impartiality and reduces bias in the evaluation process. 

 

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria: 

• Originality: The novelty and relevance of the research question or hypothesis.
• Scientific Rigor: The robustness and appropriateness of the methodology and analysis.
• Clarity: The logical flow, readability, and organization of the manuscript.
• Relevance: The importance of the research findings to the field of health studies.
• Ethical Compliance: Whether the study adheres to ethical research practices, including obtaining necessary approvals and informed consent.

 

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations: 

• Accept as is: The manuscript is ready for publication.
• Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor modifications before it can be accepted.
• Major revisions: Significant changes are required, and the revised manuscript will need further review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

Reviewers provide detailed feedback and constructive comments, which are shared with the authors to guide improvements. 

 

7. Editorial Decision

• The handling editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a preliminary decision, which is reviewed and finalized by the Editor-in-Chief.
• The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers’ comments.

 

8. Revision Process

• Minor Revisions: Authors are given 7-14 days to address minor concerns and submit a revised manuscript.
• Major Revisions: Authors are typically given 21-30 days to make substantial changes. The revised manuscript may undergo further review.

Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter detailing how they addressed the reviewers’ comments. 

 

9. Final Review and Acceptance

• The revised manuscript is evaluated by the handling editor, and if necessary, sent back to the reviewers for a final assessment.
• Once all concerns are addressed satisfactorily, the manuscript is accepted for publication.

 

10. Post-Acceptance and Proofing

• Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, and proofreading.
• Authors review the proofs to ensure accuracy before the article is published online.

 

11. Peer Review Timeline

• Initial Screening: Within 7 days of submission.
• Reviewer Assignment and Review: 3-4 weeks.
• Revisions and Final Decision: Dependent on the authors’ response time and complexity of revisions, but typically within 4-8 weeks.

 

12. Commitment to Transparency and Quality

• The journal follows the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• Reviewers are encouraged to provide professional, respectful, and unbiased feedback.
• The journal is committed to avoiding delays in the review process while maintaining a thorough and fair evaluation.

For inquiries regarding the peer review process, please contact the editorial office at  anomharjana@unud.ac.id.