Peer Review Process

Journal of Biomedical Sciences and Health (JBSH) uses a double-blind peer-review process in which author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other during review.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submission is screened for relevance to the journal's aims and scope, basic scholarly quality, compliance with author instructions, research and publication ethics, completeness of required declarations, and potential text overlap. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be returned or rejected before external review.

2. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers must not be the handling editor, must not have a relevant conflict of interest with the authors or manuscript, and must be able to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewer selection is based on expertise, independence, and suitability for the manuscript. External reviewers are selected separately from the editorial board; a journal editor does not act as an external peer reviewer. The editorial office checks current affiliation, relevant publication record, and conflicts before assignment.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess originality and significance, appropriateness of the study design and methods, validity of analyses, ethical compliance, accuracy and transparency of reporting, interpretation of results, relevance of conclusions, quality of figures and tables, and adequacy of the scholarly literature cited.

4. Editorial Decisions

Possible decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer and editor comments point by point when revision is invited. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated editorially, depending on the extent and nature of the changes. The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated independent editor makes the final publication decision.

5. Editor or Editorial Board Member as Author

If an editor or editorial board member is an author, co-author, or otherwise has a relevant conflict of interest, that person is excluded from the editorial handling and decision. The manuscript is assigned to an independent editor and undergoes the same independent peer-review standards as any other submission. The author-editor takes no part in reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer identities, or the publication decision. The independent handling arrangement and decision rationale must be recorded in OJS.

6. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Special-issue and guest-edited manuscripts are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular submissions. A guest editor who is an author or has another conflict does not participate in the review or decision on the affected manuscript.

7. Review Schedule and Records

The editorial office normally allows reviewers 7 days to respond to an invitation and 21 days to complete a review after acceptance. These are operational targets, not guarantees of acceptance or publication; extensions may be agreed with the handling editor. Authors are normally given 14 days for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions, with reasonable extensions where needed.

Reviewer assignments, substantive reports, author responses, manuscript versions, conflict-of-interest checks, and reasoned editorial decisions must be retained in the OJS editorial record. The handling editor verifies that substantive methodological concerns have been resolved before acceptance. Reviewers assess manuscripts themselves and must not use artificial intelligence to perform peer review.

8. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated data as confidential. Unpublished information may not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished data to services that cannot guarantee confidentiality.

9. Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal to jbsh@unkaha.ac.id. Appeals should identify the manuscript and explain the basis for reconsideration. They are assessed fairly, and when appropriate by an editor who was not directly involved in the disputed decision.

These requirements apply to editorial work from 3 October 2026 onward. Earlier publications are assessed against their documented procedures; missing historical evidence must not be reconstructed as if it were contemporaneous.

Last updated: 3 October 2026.