![]() |
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Every manuscript submitted to Sehat Rakyat: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat goes through editorial screening and double blind peer review, so that only work of good quality is published. The time estimates on this page depend on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds.
|
Double blind
peer review model
|
2 or more
independent reviewers
|
2 to 3
months to the first decision (average)
|
3 to 6
months from acceptance to publication (average)
|
On this page
Overview of the Process
| Step | Stage | What happens | Estimated time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial evaluation | The editors check the scope, format, originality, and ethics of the manuscript. | Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers |
| 2 | Assignment of reviewers | Independent reviewers are invited, and the manuscript is anonymized. | Within about 2 weeks |
| 3 | Review | Reviewers assess the manuscript and recommend a decision. | Usually 2 weeks |
| 4 | Decision | The Editor in Chief makes the editorial decision. | On average 2 to 3 months from submission |
| 5 | Revision | Authors revise the manuscript, and the revision is checked again. | 2 weeks for minor revision, 4 weeks for major revision |
| 6 | Publication | The accepted manuscript is copyedited and formatted. | On average 3 to 6 months from acceptance |
Estimates, not guarantees
The times above are estimates and not guarantees. The actual time depends on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the need for revision, and the number of review rounds.
1Initial Evaluation
Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editors check that it can be considered for review. A manuscript that does not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction.
| Check | What the editors look at |
|---|---|
| Scope | Whether the topic fits the Focus and Scope of the journal. |
| Format | Whether the manuscript follows the template and the rules in Manuscript Preparation. |
| Originality | Whether the work is original and unpublished, including a check of similarity under the Plagiarism Policy. |
| Ethics | Whether the manuscript follows Publication Ethics, including the statement of ethical approval and informed consent for research with human participants. |
A similarity result is not proof of plagiarism. The editors interpret it together with the context of the manuscript.
2Assignment of Reviewers
At least two independent expert reviewers are invited to assess each manuscript. Reviewers are chosen with attention to their expertise and to possible conflicts of interest, and they come from institutions that differ from that of the corresponding author. The assignment of reviewers normally takes about 2 weeks.
2.1 Anonymity
The journal uses a double blind model. The identity and affiliation of the authors, and their statements of contribution, funding, and interests, are removed from the manuscript that is sent to reviewers. The identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors, and the comments of reviewers are passed on to the authors without their names.
2.2 Conflicts of Interest
| Situation | What is done |
|---|---|
| A reviewer or an editor has a conflict of interest | The person must decline the invitation or take no part in the decision. |
| The author is an editor or a member of the editorial board | The manuscript is handled by another editor who is not involved, and the author takes no part in assessing it. |
| Fees | Charges, if any, do not influence decisions. See Author Fees. |
See also Conflicts of Interest.
3Review
Reviewers assess the quality of the manuscript and give a recommendation together with constructive feedback. A review normally takes about 2 weeks, and an extension is given only when it is agreed beforehand. Reviewers look at scientific soundness, originality, relevance to public health, fit with the Focus and Scope, validity, and the quality of each part of the manuscript.
| Part of the manuscript | What reviewers assess |
|---|---|
| Title and abstract | The title is concise and informative. The abstracts in English and Indonesian summarize the background, objective, method, findings, and conclusion, and the keywords fit the study. |
| Introduction | The urgency, the research gap, the novelty, and the objective are clear, and related studies are used well. |
| Methods | The design suits the objective. The population, sample, sampling technique, data collection, and analysis are described. Validity is checked in qualitative research, and ethical approval and informed consent are stated when people take part. |
| Results | The data are adequate, answer the research objective, and are presented clearly in tables and figures without repetition. |
| Discussion | The results are explained and compared with studies that support or disagree with them, without repeating the Results. |
| Conclusion and suggestions | The conclusion answers the research question and is supported by the findings, and the suggestions follow from them. |
| References | The sources are relevant and recent, follow the APA Style with DOI links, and match the citations in the text. |
| Ethics and integrity | Reviewers watch for plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, and the use of generative AI that the authors did not disclose. |
Use of AI by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload a manuscript to a generative AI tool. They may use generative AI only to improve the language of their own review report. See the Generative AI Policies of the journal.
4Decision
The Editor in Chief makes the decision on the basis of the comments of the reviewers and the quality of the work. Fees and the capacity of an issue play no part in the decision.
| Decision | Meaning | Time for authors |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is accepted and moves on to production. | None |
| Minor revision | Small changes are needed. A new review by the reviewers is optional. | 2 weeks |
| Major revision | Substantial changes are needed. The manuscript is usually reviewed again by the same reviewers. | 4 weeks |
| Reject | The manuscript is not accepted for publication. An appeal is possible once (see Section 6). | Not applicable |
5Revision Process
| Item | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Revised manuscript | Submit the revised manuscript with the changes marked. |
| Response letter | Include a response letter (rebuttal) that answers every comment of the reviewers and editors. |
| Review of the revision | A major revision is usually reviewed again by the same reviewers. For a minor revision, a new review is optional. |
| Deadline | Revisions are due within 2 weeks (minor) or 4 weeks (major). |
| More time | If you need more time, tell the editor before the deadline. |
6Complaints and Appeals
An appeal is accepted only when there is a demonstrable error or unfairness in the handling of the manuscript. Disagreement with the decision is not enough.
| Item | Requirement |
|---|---|
| How to send | Send the appeal to jurnal.sehatrakyat@gmail.com with the subject “Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]”. |
| Content | Explain your reasons and give evidence, and respond to the specific points of the decision. |
| Handling | An editor who was not involved handles the appeal and may ask for additional opinions. |
| Outcome | The decision on an appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once. |
| Misconduct | Allegations of misconduct are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy. |
7Publication
After acceptance, the final manuscript is copyedited and formatted. On average, publication takes 3 to 6 months from acceptance, and the manuscript is scheduled for the next available issue (see Publication Frequency). Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy.
8Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Peer Review
The journal is committed to the following principles in every peer review. They apply to editors and reviewers, and they are part of the Publication Ethics of the journal.
| Commitment | What it means |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Information about a manuscript and its review is confidential. Editors, reviewers, and others involved must not disclose it. |
| Objectivity and independence | Assessments are made objectively, on the basis of the quality of the work, and free from personal or commercial influence. |
| Timeliness | Reviewers and editors do their part within the agreed time, and say so early if they cannot. |
| Transparency and accountability | The process is explained openly, and decisions can be accounted for. |
| Conflicts of interest | Any conflict of interest is disclosed, and the person concerned steps aside from the process. |
| Plagiarism and misconduct | Suspected plagiarism or misconduct is reported to the editors and handled under the policies of the journal. |
| Recognition of reviewers | The journal values the work of reviewers and recognizes their contribution to the quality of the articles it publishes. See the Reviewer Board. |
Summary
Each manuscript is screened by the editors, reviewed by at least two independent reviewers in a double blind process, and decided by the Editor in Chief on the basis of quality and not fees. Authors may revise their manuscripts and may appeal once for a demonstrable error or unfairness.
Related instructions and enquiries
See Author Guidelines, Manuscript Preparation, Authorship and Contributorship, Plagiarism Policy, and Publication Ethics. Questions about the peer review process can be sent to jurnal.sehatrakyat@gmail.com.









