The International Journal of Adolescent and Pediatric Health (IJAPH) applies a double-blind peer-review process to support the scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, transparency, and scholarly relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

The peer-review process is guided by recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the journal's own publication ethics and editorial policies.

1. Peer Review Model

IJAPH uses a double-blind peer-review model.

Under this model:

• authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers; and
• reviewers are not provided with the identities of the authors during the review process.

Authors are therefore requested to prepare a blinded manuscript that does not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identities or institutional affiliations.

The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce potential bias and support fair assessment based on the manuscript's:

• scholarly contribution;
• methodological quality;
• originality;
• relevance to IJAPH;
• ethical compliance; and
• clarity of reporting.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Before peer review, submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.

The initial screening may consider:

• relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope;
• compliance with Author Guidelines;
• completeness of the submission;
• originality and potential inappropriate text overlap;
• methodological suitability;
• research ethics requirements;
• conflicts of interest;
• funding disclosure; and
• overall scholarly quality.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential ethical requirements, or do not satisfy basic submission standards may be declined before external peer review.

Similarity reports, when used, are considered screening tools and not automatic evidence of plagiarism.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• academic or professional qualifications;
• research or publication experience;
• ability to provide an objective assessment; and
• absence of known conflicts of interest.

Editors should avoid selecting reviewers whose relationships with the authors, institutions, funders, or research subject could reasonably compromise impartiality.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on criteria including:

• originality and scholarly contribution;
• relevance to adolescent and pediatric health;
• appropriateness of the research question;
• methodological rigor;
• quality of data analysis and interpretation;
• clarity and organization of the manuscript;
• adequacy of the discussion and conclusions;
• ethical compliance;
• appropriate use of references; and
• adherence to relevant reporting standards.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments that assist both authors and editors.

5. Review Timeline

IJAPH aims to conduct peer review in a timely manner.

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their review within approximately 2–4 weeks, although the actual review period may vary depending on:

• manuscript complexity;
• reviewer availability;
• subject specialization; and
• the need for additional expert review.

Extensions may be granted when reasonably necessary.

IJAPH does not guarantee a fixed review completion or publication time.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision is made by the appropriate editor based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, methodological quality, ethical considerations, relevance to the journal, and applicable editorial policies.

7. Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond carefully to reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should normally submit:

• a revised manuscript; and
• a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may:

• be evaluated directly by the editor;
• be returned to the original reviewers; or
• be sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

The need for further peer review depends on the extent and significance of the revisions.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
• review only manuscripts within their area of reasonable expertise;
• maintain confidentiality of all manuscript materials;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
• decline review assignments when impartial assessment cannot be provided;
• identify significant methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns;
• notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct;
• avoid personal, insulting, discriminatory, or inappropriate comments;
• complete reviews within the agreed timeframe where possible; and
• communicate promptly with the editorial office if additional time is required.

9. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorized individuals;
• discuss unpublished manuscript content outside the review process;
• use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings for personal or professional advantage; or
• retain or distribute manuscript materials beyond what is reasonably necessary for the review process.

Reviewers must protect confidential information throughout and after completion of the review.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts when using digital or AI-assisted technologies.

Confidential manuscript content, author information, unpublished data, or review materials must not be uploaded to AI systems or external platforms where confidentiality, privacy, or data protection cannot be adequately assured.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review reports.

AI-generated text must not replace independent scholarly judgment.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict that could reasonably affect their independence.

Potential conflicts may include:

• recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors;
• close personal relationships;
• supervisory relationships;
• financial interests;
• institutional conflicts;
• direct competition; or
• other circumstances that could influence impartial judgment.

When a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

Editors are responsible for reassigning the manuscript where necessary.

12. Citation Ethics

Reviewers should recommend references only when they are genuinely relevant and academically justified.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite:

• the reviewer's own publications;
• publications from a particular journal; or
• unrelated literature

for the purpose of increasing citations or obtaining personal or institutional advantage.

Inappropriate or coercive citation practices are not permitted.

13. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

Reviewers should notify the editor when they identify credible concerns involving:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate image or data manipulation;
• lack of required ethical approval;
• inappropriate consent procedures;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• serious authorship concerns; or
• other potential research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should report concerns confidentially to the editor rather than contacting the authors or their institutions directly.

The editorial team will evaluate such concerns in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Research Ethics Policy, Plagiarism and Research Integrity Policy, and relevant publication ethics guidance.

14. Editorial Responsibilities in Peer Review

Editors are responsible for:

• selecting qualified and independent reviewers;
• maintaining confidentiality;
• managing reviewer conflicts of interest;
• ensuring fair and consistent peer-review procedures;
• considering reviewer recommendations objectively;
• communicating decisions clearly to authors;
• addressing credible ethical concerns;
• protecting reviewer independence; and
• making editorial decisions without inappropriate financial, commercial, institutional, or personal influence.

The publisher does not determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

15. Reviewer Recognition

IJAPH values the scholarly contribution of peer reviewers.

Where appropriate, the journal may provide:

• reviewer certificates;
• letters of acknowledgment; or
• other appropriate documentation of reviewer contributions.

Reviewer identities will not be publicly disclosed in connection with individual manuscripts under the journal's double-blind peer-review model unless disclosure is permitted by journal policy and agreed upon by the reviewer.

16. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers and professionals with relevant expertise in adolescent health, pediatric health, nursing, public health, clinical care, child development, health technology, or related disciplines may express interest in serving as peer reviewers for IJAPH.

Prospective reviewers may be asked to provide:

• full name;
• institutional affiliation;
• academic qualifications;
• areas of expertise;
• ORCID identifier, where available;
• Scopus Author ID or other scholarly profile, where available; and
• a brief academic CV.

Expressions of interest should be sent to:

Editorial Office: editorialijaph@img.co.id

Submission of an application does not automatically result in appointment as a reviewer. Reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the editorial team based on expertise and journal requirements.

Contact

For questions regarding peer review or reviewer participation, please contact:

Publisher: PT Inovasi Multi Guna
Publisher Email: hello@img.co.id
Editorial Email: editorialijaph@img.co.id
Phone/WhatsApp: +62 851 2131 1860
Publisher Website: https://img.co.id
Journal Website: https://journal.img.co.id/index.php/ijaph