Review Guideline

1. INTRODUCTION & CORE PRINCIPLES

Jurnal Kedokteran Meditek adheres to a Double-Blind Peer Review system, where:

  • The Reviewer does not know the identity of the Author(s).
  • The Author(s) do not know the identity of the Reviewer.

The primary purpose of the peer review process is to ensure scientific quality, the rigor of medical methodology, adherence to biomedical ethics, and to provide constructive feedback to authors.

2. ETHICAL CODE FOR REVIEWERS (COPE STANDARDS)

A. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all supporting materials as confidential documents.

Sharing, discussing, or utilizing any information or data from the manuscript for personal or third-party gain without explicit written permission from the Editorial Board is strictly prohibited.

B. Objectivity and Impartiality

  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, professionally, fairly, and constructively.
  • Personal criticism directed at authors is inappropriate.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting scientific arguments.

C. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the invitation to review and inform the Editor immediately if they:

  • Recognize the identity of the author(s) through writing style, research location data, or specific manuscript content.
  • Have financial, institutional, or personal relationships with the authors or research sponsors.
  • Are in direct competition with the research topic or work presented.

D. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations within 7 business days.
  • The standard timeframe for completing a review is 14–21 days upon accepting the invitation. If an extension is needed, please contact the Editor promptly.

E. Handling Ethical Violations

If a Reviewer discovers or suspects any ethical misconduct, such as:

  • Plagiarism or Self-Plagiarism
  • Data Fabrication or Falsification
  • Redundant/Duplicate Publication
  • Lack of Ethical Approval (Ethical Clearance) or Informed Consent

Action: Do not reject the manuscript outright or attempt to contact the author directly. Promptly report the suspicion in writing to the Editor of Jurnal Kedokteran Meditek along with supporting evidence.

3.CHECKLIST FOR MEDICAL MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION

When reviewing a manuscript, Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following components:

Manuscript Section

Key Points to Check & Evaluate

Title & Abstract

Is the title informative, specific, and reflective of the study? Is the abstract accurate, concisely detailing the background, methods, results, and conclusion? Are the keywords appropriate (preferably MeSH terms)?

Introduction

Is the clinical or public health background clearly stated? Is there a clear research gap and well-defined study objective?

Methodology

Is the study design appropriate (e.g., RCT, Cohort, Cross-Sectional, Case Report)? Are the study population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and sample size relevant? Are the statistical methods appropriate and clearly explained?

Research Ethics

Is an Ethical Clearance Number from an Institutional Review Board / Health Research Ethics Committee cited? Is patient Informed Consent documented (especially for case reports or human subjects)?

Results

Are the data presentations (tables, figures, numbers) clear, accurate, and consistent? Is there unnecessary duplication between text and tables?

Discussion

Are the findings interpreted logically according to current medical literature? Are the study limitations explicitly discussed?

Conclusion & Recommendations

Does the conclusion directly address the research objectives based on the data? Are the clinical implications realistic and rational?

References

Are the references up-to-date (preferably within the last 5–10 years) and relevant? Is there any evidence of coerced citation?

4. STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW REPORT

Reviewers are requested to format their feedback as follows:

  • General Summary:

A brief overview summarizing the study's scope, primary strengths, and key weaknesses.

  • Major Comments:

Critical scientific concerns regarding methodology validity, data interpretation, medical ethics, or missing essential data that directly impact the manuscript's conclusions.

  • Minor Comments:

Technical corrections such as typos, formatting issues in tables/figures, phrasing clarity, or reference updates.

  • Confidential Comments to Editor:

(Optional) Remarks intended exclusively for the Editors (not shared with the authors), such as ethical concerns or specific doubts.

5. FINAL RECOMMENDATION

At the conclusion of the review, the Reviewer must select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission: Accept as is, without further revisions.
  • Revisions Required: Accept with minor revisions (e.g., grammatical polishing, adding references, minor table adjustments).
  • Resubmit for Review: Major revisions required (e.g., methodological improvements, statistical re-analysis); the manuscript must undergo another round of peer review.
  • Decline Submission: Reject due to fundamental methodological flaws, ethical violations, plagiarism, or lack of scope relevance.