Review Procedure

 

JHNR EDITORIAL & REVIEW POLICY

Review Procedure

Transparent, independent, and double-blind peer review to support scientific quality, research integrity, and responsible editorial decision-making.

Introduction to Peer Review

The Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR) employs a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the originality, scientific validity, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts, including those invited by the editor, are subject to the journal's editorial assessment and applicable peer-review requirements.

Reviewers provide independent scientific recommendations, while the editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

Last Updated: 9 October 2026

JHNR Peer-Review Standards

Review Model: Double-blind peer review.

External Reviewers: At least two independent external experts.

Initial Screening: Normally targeted within 2-3 working days after a complete submission.

Submission-to-Decision Time: Approximately 3-5 weeks on average.

Similarity Screening: Turnitin before external peer review.

Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or the editor acting under the journal's authorized editorial procedures.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor examines:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  • Suitability of manuscript type.
  • Compliance with the current manuscript template.
  • Originality and scientific contribution.
  • Methodological adequacy.
  • Research ethics and required declarations.
  • Completeness of files and OJS metadata.
  • Clarity of academic English.
  • Compliance with plagiarism and publication ethics policies.

Initial screening is normally targeted within 2-3 working days after all required materials are received. This target is not a guaranteed processing deadline.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned for technical correction or rejected without external review.

2. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Before external peer review, submitted manuscripts are screened using Turnitin plagiarism-detection software.

JHNR applies an overall similarity threshold of no more than 25% in accordance with the journal's published screening requirements.

Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team. A numerical similarity score alone does not establish whether plagiarism has occurred.

Confirmed plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or serious originality concerns may result in rejection regardless of the numerical similarity score.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

JHNR follows a double-blind peer-review system in which reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

Authors submit one complete manuscript containing the required author information and declarations. A separate anonymized manuscript is not required at submission.

The editorial office prepares a blinded manuscript copy before forwarding it to reviewers. Identifying information is removed or masked where necessary.

Reasonable measures are taken to preserve anonymity, although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed when identifying information is inherent in the research context.

4. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Manuscripts selected for external review are evaluated by at least two qualified independent external experts with relevant scientific or methodological expertise.

Reviewer selection considers:

  • Relevant subject expertise.
  • Experience in the research area.
  • Independence from the authors and the research.
  • Absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest.
  • Ability to provide a constructive and timely review.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when requested by the journal. However, reviewer appointment remains solely at the editor's discretion following relevant independence and conflict-of-interest checks.

Additional reviewers may be invited when reports are substantially inconsistent, further expertise is necessary, or unresolved scientific questions remain.

5. Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments of the manuscript.

Originality and Scientific Contribution

The relevance and contribution of the study to existing knowledge.

Methodological Quality

The appropriateness of the research design, methods, measurements, and analytical procedures.

Results and Interpretation

Accuracy of reporting, appropriateness of analysis, and alignment of conclusions with the presented findings.

Research Ethics and Integrity

Compliance with applicable ethical approval, informed consent, originality, and publication integrity requirements.

Presentation and Clarity

Clarity of academic writing, appropriate organization, and completeness of tables, figures, and references.

6. Peer-Review and Editorial Timeline

According to the JHNR Journal Information, the average turnaround time from manuscript submission to an editorial decision is approximately 3-5 weeks.

Stage Indicative Timing
Initial Editorial Screening Target: 2-3 working days
External Peer Review According to reviewer availability and assigned deadlines
Submission to Editorial Decision Average: approximately 3-5 weeks

Timeline Disclaimer: These timeframes are indicative, not guaranteed. Editorial processing may take longer due to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision rounds, additional reviews, or research-integrity inquiries. The average submission-to-decision period should not be interpreted as a guaranteed acceptance or publication date.

7. JHNR Peer-Review Workflow

The following workflow summarizes the editorial and double-blind peer-review process.

01. Manuscript Submission

One complete manuscript is submitted through the JHNR OJS system.

↓

02. Initial Editorial Screening

The editor assesses scope, originality, formatting, ethics, and completeness, including similarity screening.

↓

03. Anonymization and Reviewer Assignment

The editorial office prepares a blinded manuscript copy. At least two qualified independent external reviewers are appointed.

↓

04. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers independently assess the manuscript and submit their scientific recommendations.

↓

05. Editorial Evaluation

The editor assesses reviewer reports and determines whether revision, further review, or an editorial decision is appropriate.

↓

06. Manuscript Revision, If Required

Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.

↓

07. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief determines whether the manuscript is accepted, requires further revision or review, or is rejected.

8. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the outcome.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept.
  • Minor revision.
  • Major revision.
  • Resubmit for further review.
  • Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, journal scope, peer-review findings, and applicable publication ethics requirements.

9. Responsibilities of Reviewers, Editors, and Authors

Reviewers

Provide independent, constructive, evidence-based reviews; maintain confidentiality; disclose conflicts of interest; and avoid misuse of unpublished research information.

Editors

Select appropriate reviewers, protect confidentiality, assess reviewer reports fairly, manage conflicts of interest, and maintain editorial independence.

Authors

Respond to editorial and reviewer comments accurately, make transparent revisions, provide a point-by-point response, and maintain research integrity.

10. Confidentiality and Generative AI

Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and confidential editorial communication must be protected throughout the review process.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, review reports, or editorial communications into generative AI systems in violation of the journal's AI policy.

Generative AI must not replace the independent scientific evaluation performed by reviewers or the editorial judgment exercised by editors. Human reviewers and editors remain responsible for their assessments and decisions.

11. Editorial Independence and Publication Integrity

JHNR maintains the independence of editorial and peer-review decisions from commercial, institutional, personal, or financial influence.

The payment of article processing charges does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

The editorial team may request additional review or further investigation if substantial scientific or publication ethics concerns arise.

Policy Statement

JHNR is committed to independent, confidential, transparent, and scientifically rigorous peer review. At least two independent external experts participate in the peer-review evaluation of manuscripts selected for external review. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editor.

Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR)
Published by CV Media Publikasi Cendekia Indonesia (MPCI)
Last Updated: 9 October 2026