Browse this journal

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Kesehatan Pengabdian Masyarakat (JKPM) applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure an objective, fair, and independent assessment of submitted manuscripts. In a double-blind review, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review and editorial decision-making process.

1. Reviewer Selection

Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of three independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic and professional expertise, research experience, methodological competence, and suitability to the topic of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the research or community engagement activities reported in the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

The journal does not permit authors to influence the selection of reviewers. Any reviewer recommendations submitted by authors may be considered by the Editor but do not guarantee reviewer appointment.

2. Double-Blind Review Process

Before peer review, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess their conformity with the journal's focus and scope, manuscript requirements, originality, completeness, and basic ethical standards.

Manuscripts that meet the initial screening requirements are assigned to three reviewers for independent evaluation. The reviewers do not have access to the identity or affiliation of the authors, while authors do not have access to the identity or affiliation of the reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, among other considerations:

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • originality and contribution to the field;

  • clarity of the community health problem and needs assessment;

  • appropriateness and rigor of the methods or intervention;

  • involvement and participation of the target community;

  • validity and clarity of the results or outcomes;

  • relevance and adequacy of the discussion;

  • quality and accuracy of references;

  • ethical considerations;

  • clarity, organization, and academic quality of the manuscript; and

  • potential contribution, sustainability, and applicability of the reported community engagement activities.

3. Reviewer's Recommendation and Editorial Decision

After completing the review, each reviewer provides comments and a recommendation to the editor. Possible recommendations include:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision; or

  • Reject.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor after considering the reviewers' comments, the quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal's scope, ethical considerations, and other editorial factors.

The recommendation of reviewers is advisory and does not automatically determine the final editorial decision. In cases of substantially divergent reviewer recommendations, the editor may request an additional review or seek further expert advice before making a final decision.

4. Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments systematically and provide a clear explanation of the revisions made. Authors may be asked to submit a revised manuscript together with a response-to-reviewers document.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary. The number of revision rounds is determined by the editor based on the quality and extent of the required revisions.

5. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal, professional, or research purposes without permission from the editor and authors.

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest and decline the assignment when their impartiality may reasonably be compromised.

Reviewers must provide constructive, professional, and scientifically justified comments and should not make personal, discriminatory, or offensive remarks about authors.

6. Peer Review Timeline

The peer review and editorial process generally requires approximately 2–3 months from the time a manuscript enters the peer-review process until an initial editorial decision is reached. This timeframe is an estimate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional review, the extent of revisions required, and other editorial circumstances.

The stated timeframe does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specific period. If an unexpected delay occurs, the Editorial Office may inform the corresponding author regarding the status of the manuscript and the reason for the delay.

7. Exceptions to Peer Review

All research and community engagement articles submitted to JKPM that are eligible for publication undergo the journal's established peer-review process. Editorial materials or other article types that do not require full peer review, if any, will be clearly identified by the Editorial Board.

Any article that receives an exception from the standard peer-review procedure will indicate the type of editorial evaluation it received, where applicable.

8. Publication Dates

For transparency, published articles display the relevant editorial dates, including the submission date (Received), acceptance date (Accepted), and publication date (Published). Revision dates may also be indicated where applicable.

JKPM does not guarantee acceptance of initial submissions, and editorial decisions are based on scholarly quality, relevance, ethical standards, peer-review outcomes, and the independent judgment of the Editorial Board.