Peer Review Policies & Responsibilities

The Journal of Community Health and Nursing (JCHN) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, rigor, and transparency in scholarly publishing. Peer review plays a central role in this mission by ensuring the quality and credibility of the published work.

JCHN implements a structured and ethical double-blind peer review process, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for editors, reviewers, and authors.

1. Peer Review Model

Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers.

  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

This model minimizes potential bias based on gender, institution, nationality, or seniority.
Exceptions apply for certain article types (e.g., Editorials or Letters), where editorial or single-blind review may be used.

2. Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

  • Ensure scientific accuracy, validity, and relevance

  • Maintain ethical research standards

  • Improve manuscript quality through constructive feedback

  • Guide editorial decisions fairly and transparently

3. Detailed Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

  • The editorial office checks for completeness, plagiarism (using Turnitin), journal scope, formatting, and ethical compliance (e.g., informed consent, IRB approval).

  • Manuscripts that fail basic checks are desk-rejected with feedback to the author.

Step 2: Assignment to Handling Editor

  • Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a section editor or associate editor with subject expertise.

Step 3: Reviewer Selection and Invitation

  • At least two qualified reviewers are invited based on their subject matter expertise, publication history, and past review performance.

  • Reviewers are asked to accept or decline within 5 days, and complete their review within 14–21 days.

Step 4: Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are guided to assess:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Research design, sampling, data collection and analysis

  • Clarity of results and conclusions

  • Relevance to community health and nursing practice

  • Adherence to ethical standards

  • Quality of writing, figures, and references

Step 5: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, the handling editor recommends:

  • Accept

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, which is communicated to the author along with anonymized reviewer comments.

Step 6: Revision and Re-Review

  • Authors must submit a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

  • Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further assessment, depending on the extent of changes.

Step 7: Final Acceptance

Once a manuscript meets the scientific and editorial standards, it proceeds to copyediting, layout, and online publication with a DOI.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Respond to invitations promptly and review within the deadline

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and review process

  • Provide objective, evidence-based, and respectful feedback

  • Identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research

  • Declare any conflicts of interest

  • Avoid AI-generated reviews unless used for language support (must be disclosed and human-reviewed)

Review Reports Should:

  • Include a summary of the manuscript and its strengths

  • Provide clear, constructive suggestions for improvement

  • Justify recommendations (accept, revise, or reject)

  • Avoid personal, derogatory, or vague comments

5. Editor Responsibilities

Editors must:

  • Uphold the integrity and fairness of the review process

  • Assign reviewers based on expertise and lack of conflict of interest

  • Make decisions based on scientific merit, not authors’ background, affiliation, or nationality

  • Ensure timely processing and communication

  • Handle appeals, complaints, or suspected misconduct transparently and in accordance with COPE guidelines

  • Respect reviewer and author confidentiality

6. Author Responsibilities in Peer Review

Authors are responsible for:

  • Submitting original, ethically approved work

  • Ensuring that all listed authors meet authorship criteria

  • Responding to reviewer comments fully and respectfully

  • Disclosing any competing interests or prior submissions

  • Not submitting the manuscript to another journal during review

7. Conflict of Interest Policy

All participants in the peer review process—authors, editors, and reviewers—must declare any potential financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest. These include:

  • Employment or funding from competing organizations

  • Recent co-authorship or collaboration

  • Personal relationships

Conflicts are evaluated by the editorial team and may result in reassignment of reviewers or editors.

8. Use of AI in Peer Review

JCHN recognizes that generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot) may assist in language clarity but must not be used to independently generate or submit peer reviews.

  • Reviewers may use AI only for language assistance or grammar correction.

  • All AI use must be disclosed, and the final review must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgment.

  • Undisclosed AI-written reviews are grounds for removal from the reviewer pool.

9. Confidentiality and Data Protection

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be shared, stored, or cited.

  • Reviewers and editors must destroy all copies after the review is completed unless required for recordkeeping.

  • All peer review data are stored securely and only accessible by authorized editorial staff.

10. Reviewer Recognition and Accountability

To promote transparency and academic service:

  • Reviewers may request certificates of review

  • Reviewer contributions may be linked to Publons or ORCID profiles upon request

  • Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually on the journal’s website

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions or submit complaints via:
editorial@jchn.or.id

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial advisory team. All appeals must be evidence-based and respectful.

This policy is reviewed annually and updated as needed to reflect evolving best practices in peer review and scholarly publishing.