Review Procedure
JHNR • EDITORIAL AND REVIEW POLICY
Review Procedure
Independent, confidential, and double-blind peer review to support scientific quality, research integrity, and responsible editorial decisions.
Introduction
The Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR) implements a double-blind peer-review system for manuscripts that meet its initial editorial screening requirements.
External reviewers independently assess the scientific merit, methodological quality, validity of interpretation, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted research.
Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief under the journal's authorized editorial procedures. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not automatically determine decisions.
Last Updated: 15 October 2026
Peer-Review Standards
Review Model: Double-blind.
External Reviewers: At least two qualified independent external experts.
Initial Screening: Target of 2-3 working days.
Reviewer Report Deadline: Normally requested within 24 days.
Average Submission-to-Decision: Approximately 3-5 weeks.
Similarity Screening: Turnitin, with an overall 25% threshold.
Final Decision: Editor-in-Chief.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are screened by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor before external review.
Initial assessment includes:
- Alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope.
- Appropriateness of manuscript type.
- Compliance with the JHNR template.
- Originality and scientific contribution.
- Adequacy of study design and methods.
- Research ethics and required declarations.
- Completeness of files and OJS metadata.
- Quality of academic writing and reporting.
- Consistency with publication ethics requirements.
The journal targets an initial assessment within 2-3 working days after receiving a complete submission. This is an indicative target, not a guaranteed deadline.
Manuscripts may proceed to external review, be returned for technical correction, or be rejected without external review when minimum requirements are not met.
2. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening
Submitted manuscripts undergo Turnitin similarity screening before external review.
JHNR applies an overall similarity threshold of no more than 25%. The editorial team examines the nature and sources of overlapping text.
A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. Improper citation, unattributed copying, redundant publication, or serious integrity concerns may warrant action regardless of the score.
Where appropriate, the editor may request clarification or correction, or reject a manuscript with substantiated serious problems.
3. Double-Blind Review and Manuscript Anonymization
JHNR uses a double-blind review process: reviewers are not informed of authors' identities, and authors are not informed of reviewers' identities.
Submission Requirement: Authors submit one complete manuscript containing names, affiliations, and required declarations. The editorial office, not the author, prepares an anonymized version for external review.
Before assigning reviewers, the editorial office removes or masks direct identifying information from the review copy, including author names, affiliations, contact details, and identifying document metadata where feasible.
Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed if authors or research projects are identifiable through public protocols, preprints, or unique study characteristics.
4. Reviewer Suggestions, Selection, and Appointment
Authors must suggest at least two potential reviewers in the "Comments to the Editor" field during submission, as specified in the Author Guidelines.
For each suggested reviewer, authors provide a full name, institutional affiliation, and professional email address. Suggestions should be free from relevant conflicts of interest.
The editor independently selects reviewers and is not required to appoint author-suggested candidates.
Minimum Independent Review Requirement
Manuscripts proceeding through external peer review are evaluated by at least two qualified, independent external reviewers. Their assessments are considered before a post-review acceptance decision is made.
Reviewer selection considers:
- Relevant academic and methodological expertise.
- Independence from authors and the research.
- Absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest.
- Ability to provide a timely, evidence-based review.
- Relevant research or reviewing experience.
When a reviewer declines, does not respond, or fails to submit an adequate review, the editor may invite a replacement or additional qualified reviewer.
Disagreement between reviews, unresolved methodological concerns, or specialized scientific issues may require further review.
5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Originality and Contribution
The manuscript's relevance, research gap, and contribution to scientific knowledge.
Methodological Quality
Appropriateness of study design, sampling, interventions, measurements, and analytical procedures.
Results and Interpretation
Accuracy, consistency, transparency, statistical reporting, and whether conclusions are supported by results.
Research Ethics
Ethical approval, informed consent, animal welfare, originality, and research integrity where applicable.
Reporting and Presentation
Clarity, structure, completeness of tables and figures, references, and consistency with applicable reporting guidelines.
6. Editorial and Peer-Review Timeline
The following are indicative processing targets, not guaranteed acceptance or publication deadlines.
| Stage | Indicative Time |
|---|---|
| Initial screening | 2-3 working days (target) |
| Reviewer report | Normally requested within 24 days |
| Submission to editorial decision | Approximately 3-5 weeks on average |
The reviewer report deadline refers to an individual review assignment. The submission-to-decision period is a separate measure and should not be interpreted as the time to final acceptance or publication.
Additional reviewers, author revisions, complex methodological questions, or ethics inquiries may extend the processing period.
7. JHNR Peer-Review Workflow
Authors submit one complete manuscript through the official OJS platform.
↓
The editor assesses suitability, completeness, ethics, originality, and Turnitin similarity findings.
↓
The editorial office prepares a blinded copy and appoints at least two independent external reviewers.
↓
Reviewers independently assess the manuscript and submit confidential reports.
↓
The editor examines the reports, resolves outstanding concerns, and determines whether revision, additional review, or a decision is appropriate.
↓
Authors submit a revised manuscript and point-by-point response. The editor or reviewers reassess the revision as appropriate.
↓
The Editor-in-Chief determines acceptance or rejection in accordance with scientific merit, reviewer assessments, and publication ethics requirements.
8. Editorial Decisions and Author Revisions
Editorial outcomes may include:
- Accept.
- Minor revision.
- Major revision.
- Resubmit for further review.
- Reject.
When revision is requested, authors should respond to each reviewer and editor comment, explain changes made, and provide a reasoned scientific response when a suggestion is not adopted.
Acceptance is based on the journal's editorial decision, not solely on a reviewer's recommendation or the payment of publication fees.
9. Duties of Reviewers, Editors, and Authors
Reviewers
Provide objective and constructive reviews, protect confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, avoid inappropriate use of unpublished information, and promptly notify the editor if unable to complete the assignment.
Editors
Select reviewers fairly, manage conflicts of interest, assess reviews independently, protect identities, and document editorial actions.
Authors
Submit accurate research reports, disclose relevant ethical information, respond to reviewer comments, and maintain research integrity throughout revision and publication.
10. Confidentiality and Generative AI
Manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are confidential.
Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential submission materials to third-party generative AI services where doing so violates the JHNR Gen AI Policy or compromises confidentiality.
Generative AI must not replace independent scientific peer review or human editorial judgment.
11. Editorial Independence and Recordkeeping
Editorial decisions must remain independent of financial, commercial, institutional, or personal influence.
The editorial office should retain relevant manuscript history in OJS, including reviewer assignments, review reports, correspondence, revision records, and editorial decisions, subject to applicable access, privacy, and retention policies.
When reviewer assignments or editorial steps are completed outside OJS, the authorized editorial team should maintain an appropriate documented record of those activities.
Editorial processing records support accountability, internal quality assurance, and verification during journal accreditation or other assessments.
Related JHNR Policies
Policy Statement
JHNR is committed to impartial, confidential, transparent, and scientifically rigorous peer review. Independent expert assessment, accountable editorial decision-making, and responsible handling of scholarly manuscripts are central to the journal's editorial process.
Published by CV Media Publikasi Cendekia Indonesia (MPCI)
Review Procedure - Revised 15 October 2026
