Peer Review Process

Permata Public Health Journal (PPHJ)

Overview

The Peer Review Process at PERMATA PUBLIC HEALTH JOURNAL is designed to ensure the highest standards of scientific quality, originality, and relevance. Our comprehensive review system includes multiple evaluation stages, culminating in a final decision by the Chief Editor and publication workflow.

Review Model

PPHJ employs a Double-Blind Peer Review Model to ensure impartiality and maintain scientific integrity throughout the evaluation process. Under this model:

  • Communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the assigned editor.
  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to the peer reviewers.
  • The identities of peer reviewers remain confidential and unknown to the authors.
  • This approach minimizes bias and promotes objective, merit-based evaluation.
Review Rounds: Manuscripts typically undergo at least two rounds of peer review. In each round, the manuscript is ideally evaluated by two qualified peer reviewers with relevant expertise.

Review Quality Criteria

During the peer review process, reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

  • Methodological Rigor: Assessment of the appropriateness, accuracy, and proper application of research methodology. Reviewers examine whether the research design is suitable for the research questions posed and whether the methodology is executed correctly.
  • Scientific Impact & Relevance: Evaluation of the manuscript's potential impact on both the scientific community and policymakers. Reviewers assess whether the findings can contribute to advancing public health knowledge and inform evidence-based policy decisions.
  • Novelty and Originality: Assessment of whether the research presents new insights, innovative approaches, or original findings that advance the field of public health. Reviewers ensure the work is not redundant with existing published research.
  • Clarity and Presentation: Evaluation of the manuscript's organization, writing quality, logical flow, and clarity of expression to ensure the work is comprehensible to the intended audience.
  • Ethical Compliance: Verification that the research adheres to ethical standards, including appropriate institutional approvals, informed consent procedures, and data protection measures.

Review Workflow

The peer review process at PPHJ follows a structured workflow:

Round 1: Initial Peer Review

The editor assigns the manuscript to two qualified peer reviewers based on their expertise. Reviewers provide detailed feedback, assessments, and recommendations within the designated timeframe.

Round 2: Revised Submission and Secondary Review

Authors revise their manuscript based on reviewer comments and resubmit with a detailed response letter addressing all suggestions and changes. The editor may request a second round of review by the same or different reviewers to verify the quality of revisions.

Chief Editor Post-Review Assessment

Following the completion of peer review rounds, the Chief Editor conducts a comprehensive post-review assessment. The Chief Editor reviews the peer reviewers' recommendations, evaluates the authors' responses and revisions, and makes a final editorial decision regarding acceptance, conditional acceptance, or rejection of the manuscript.

Final Decision Communication

Authors are notified of the Chief Editor's final decision with a summary of the editorial rationale and any final recommendations or requirements for publication.

Publication Process

Upon acceptance of the manuscript, the article enters the publication workflow:

  • Copy Editing & Proofreading: The accepted manuscript undergoes professional copy editing and proofreading to ensure consistency, clarity, and adherence to the journal's publication style.
  • Typesetting: The manuscript is formatted according to journal specifications for layout and design.
  • Proofs: Authors are provided with page proofs for final review and approval before publication.
  • Publication: The final, corrected manuscript is published in the designated issue of PPHJ and made available through the journal's online platform as an open-access article.

Review Comments and Reuse

Peer review reports and comments are a valuable resource for manuscript improvement. Authors have the option to utilize the detailed feedback from PPHJ's peer reviewers when submitting their manuscript to another journal or publisher. Review comments may include:

  • Formal review forms and structured assessment templates
  • Direct comments and annotations from peer reviewers on the manuscript
  • Specific recommendations for improvement and revision
Note: Authors should use this constructive feedback to enhance their manuscript quality, whether for resubmission to PPHJ or submission to other venues.

Confidentiality and Ethics

PPHJ maintains the highest standards of confidentiality and ethical conduct throughout the peer review process:

  • Reviewer Confidentiality: Peer reviewers are strictly prohibited from discussing the manuscript under review with colleagues or other reviewers without explicit permission from the editor. This ensures the integrity of the review process.
  • Manuscript Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts are treated as confidential and privileged information. They may not be shared or discussed with unauthorized individuals.
  • Non-Transparent Review: Currently, PPHJ does not publish peer review reports alongside articles or provide public access to the review process. The review process remains confidential between authors, reviewers, and the editorial team.
  • Single-Track Communication: All interactions between authors and reviewers are coordinated exclusively through the designated handling editor to maintain anonymity and prevent direct contact.

Quality Assurance Through Rigorous Review

Permata Public Health Journal