Peer-Review Policy

Peer Review Process

The Jurnal Kedokteran Meditek adheres to a rigorous and transparent evaluation based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards. All submitted articles are subject to a double-blind peer review process (where both author and reviewer identities are concealed). The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team make the final publication decision based on reviewers’ reports. To ensure alignment with the scope and general provisions of the Jurnal Kedokteran Meditek, as well as to uphold scientific quality and originality, the review process is maintained throughout, from submission to publication.

 

Initial Screening

At the submission stage, the editors check the completeness of the documents (the authorship statement agreement signed by all authors, research ethics, and template compliance). This stage also includes screen for fabrication, plagiarism, and image manipulation. Mandatory plagiarism screening using similarity index software (e.g. Turnitin) is conducted for each manuscript to ensure the work is free from fabrication. The editors also assess the manuscript's suitability for focus, scope, format, and originality. Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria will be rejected or returned to the author. After passing this stage, the Editor-in-Chief appoints an Associate Editor to manage the review process.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two reviewers through a double-blind review process. Reviewers assess originality, clarity, scientific validity, methodology, research ethics, and contribution to medical and biomedical science. The review process takes approximately 1–3 months, depending on the availability of reviewers and the quality of the manuscript. If necessary, the Associate Editor can open a second round of reviews.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and academic track record, not personal relationships. Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and adhere to review guidelines to ensure objectivity and integrity. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Review results are available to authors through OJS, and authors can submit objections to the editors via email.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers and editors assess manuscripts based on the following critical factors:

  • Originality: Does the work contribute to existing knowledge?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the experimental designs, materials, and methods clearly described and scientifically sound?
  • Clarity and Readability: Is the manuscript written in clear and proper structure?
  • Ethical Compliance: Does the research adhere to international ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki for human studies or ARRIVE guidelines for animal research?

 

Authors’ suggestion for peer-reviewers

Authors can nominate peer-reviewers for their submitted manuscript under the following criteria:

  • The nominated reviewers should have high academic standing in the subject area of the submitted article and should be reflected in terms of their publications.
  • Authors must provide the institutional/academic email addresses of the nominated reviewers.
  • Authors must provide the academic profile pages of the nominated reviewers.
  • The journal reserves the right NOT to choose any reviewer from the suggested list.

 

Editorial Decision

The reviewer's reports determine the editor's decisions. The possible outcomes include:

Accept: The paper is ready for publication.

Minor Revisions: The authors must address small technical or stylistic issues.

Major Revisions: The paper requires significant changes and may undergo a second round of review.

Reject: The paper does not meet the journal's standards for quality or originality

 

Ethical Standards in Review

Confidentiality: All manuscripts are treated as privileged, confidential documents. Reviewers and editorial staff are prohibited from sharing or using unpublished data for personal gain.

Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from manuscripts where their objectivity could be compromised.

AI Policy: The use of generative AI tools is strictly prohibited for reviewers in creating review content and for editors in making evaluation decisions.

Editorial Independence: Decisions are made solely on academic merit and are independent of commercial interests and institutional affiliations.