Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Health Justice Review (IHJR) applies a rigorous, independent, and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure the originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal's commitment to academic integrity, research ethics, methodological rigor, editorial independence, and responsible scholarly communication. Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of academic merit and relevance to the journal's focus and scope, without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, geographic location, professional background, gender, or other non-academic characteristics.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of health justice scholarship, the journal may engage reviewers from medicine, public health, health law, bioethics, health policy, health economics, human rights, sociology, epidemiology, social sciences, and related disciplines.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

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

The editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:

falls within the journal's focus and scope;
presents a clearly defined research question, problem, or scholarly argument;
demonstrates originality and academic significance;
engages meaningfully with relevant national and international literature;
employs an appropriate research design and methodology;
demonstrates adequate analytical depth;
meets the journal's basic structural and formatting requirements;
complies with applicable research and publication ethics; and
makes a meaningful potential contribution to scholarship on health, law, policy, human rights, or health justice.

Manuscripts may be declined at the initial stage if they are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scholarly development, or fail to meet fundamental academic requirements.

An initial editorial rejection does not necessarily imply that the research topic lacks scientific, clinical, or social value.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated through a double-blind peer review process.

Under this system:

the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers; and
the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes unnecessary disclosure of their identity or institutional affiliation.

The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity and confidentiality throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly for highly specialized research, clinical studies, distinctive datasets, or research that has already been publicly disseminated.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor according to the manuscript's subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary requirements.

Depending on the manuscript, reviewers may be selected from fields including:

medicine and clinical sciences;
public health;
epidemiology;
health law;
bioethics;
health policy;
health economics;
human rights;
sociology and social sciences;
health services research;
health administration; and
related disciplines.

Reviewers should possess appropriate expertise and demonstrate the ability to provide an independent, rigorous, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

Where appropriate, the journal may appoint reviewers from different disciplines to ensure adequate assessment of interdisciplinary manuscripts.

4. Number of Reviewers

As a general policy, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when:

reviewer recommendations substantially conflict;
specialized clinical, legal, statistical, or methodological expertise is required;
significant ethical concerns arise;
a reviewer withdraws from the process; or
the editor determines that an additional independent assessment is necessary.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to assess manuscripts according to:

originality and novelty;
significance of the research problem;
clarity of research questions or objectives;
strength of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
appropriateness and rigor of methodology;
validity and reliability of evidence or data;
quality of analysis;
coherence between research questions, methods, results, and conclusions;
relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
ethical considerations;
clarity and organization;
contribution to existing scholarship; and
potential implications for health practice, law, policy, institutions, or social justice.

6. Clinical, Medical, and Public Health Research

For manuscripts involving clinical, epidemiological, biomedical, or public health research, reviewers may additionally evaluate:

appropriateness of the study design;
participant selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria;
sample size and statistical methods where applicable;
validity and reliability of measurements;
appropriateness of analytical procedures;
interpretation of results;
treatment of limitations;
reproducibility and transparency where applicable; and
consistency between evidence and conclusions.

Authors must avoid unsupported causal claims and should clearly distinguish between association, correlation, and causation where relevant.

7. Health Law and Human Rights Research

For manuscripts addressing health law, human rights, or legal institutions, reviewers may additionally assess:

accuracy and coherence of legal reasoning;
interpretation of legislation and regulations;
use of judicial decisions and legal authorities where relevant;
constitutional and administrative dimensions;
patient rights and healthcare rights;
equality and non-discrimination;
access to healthcare;
privacy and confidentiality;
informed consent;
state obligations and institutional responsibility; and
contribution to health law or human-rights scholarship.

Legal analysis should demonstrate substantive analytical, theoretical, comparative, or normative value rather than merely describing applicable regulations.

8. Health Justice and Health Inequality

Because health justice is central to the journal's intellectual mission, reviewers may assess whether manuscripts adequately engage with relevant dimensions of justice, including:

equitable access to healthcare;
health disparities and inequalities;
social determinants of health;
socioeconomic differences in health outcomes;
geographic and regional disparities;
gender and health;
disability and healthcare access;
minority and marginalized populations;
affordability and financial protection;
distribution of healthcare resources; and
institutional and structural determinants of health inequity.

Where manuscripts make normative claims concerning justice or equity, such claims should be supported by appropriate theoretical reasoning and evidence.

9. Health Policy and Health Systems Research

For manuscripts addressing health policy or health systems, reviewers may consider:

policy relevance and significance;
institutional and governance frameworks;
health system performance;
financing and resource allocation;
healthcare accessibility and affordability;
policy implementation;
stakeholder engagement;
institutional accountability;
evidence supporting policy recommendations; and
feasibility and limitations of proposed interventions.

Policy recommendations should be proportionate to the evidence presented.

10. Bioethics and Ethical Research

For manuscripts addressing bioethics or research involving human participants, reviewers may assess:

ethical justification of the research;
informed consent procedures;
protection of participants;
confidentiality and privacy;
risk–benefit considerations;
vulnerable populations;
ethical oversight;
conflicts of interest; and
compliance with applicable ethical standards.

Where applicable, authors should provide information concerning approval by an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review body.

11. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

Where appropriate, manuscripts should clearly state:

whether ethical approval was obtained;
the name or identifying information of the approving ethics committee where disclosure is appropriate;
whether informed consent was obtained;
how participant confidentiality was protected; and
how risks to participants were addressed.

The editorial team may request additional information regarding ethical approval or participant protection when necessary.

12. Research Involving Sensitive Health Data

Manuscripts involving medical records, patient information, genetic information, biometric data, or other sensitive health information must demonstrate appropriate safeguards for privacy and confidentiality.

Authors should ensure that individuals cannot be identified unnecessarily through:

names;
photographs;
medical records;
unique combinations of demographic information;
clinical details; or
other identifying information.

Where disclosure of potentially identifiable information is scientifically necessary, appropriate consent and ethical safeguards should be demonstrated.

13. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept — the manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal editorial corrections.
Minor Revision — limited revisions are required before publication.
Major Revision — substantial revisions are required and further peer review may be necessary.
Reject and Resubmit — the manuscript demonstrates potential but requires substantial redevelopment and should be submitted as a new manuscript.
Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards concerning originality, rigor, relevance, methodology, ethics, or scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.

14. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the final decision after considering:

reviewer reports;
academic quality and originality;
methodological rigor;
ethical considerations;
clinical, legal, policy, or social relevance where applicable;
relevance to the journal's scope; and
potential contribution to international scholarship.

Editorial decisions are not determined solely by one reviewer or by a mechanical counting of reviewer recommendations.

15. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit:

a revised manuscript; and
a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

The response should explain how substantive comments have been addressed. Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a reasoned academic justification.

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers at the editor's discretion.

16. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all associated materials as confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

disclose manuscript content to unauthorized persons;
share unpublished health data or research findings;
use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit;
reproduce or distribute manuscript materials;
contact authors directly concerning the submission; or
disclose their identity as a reviewer without authorization.

Reviewer reports should be professional, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful.

17. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline an assignment when they:

have a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
have recently collaborated with an author;
are affiliated with the same institution as an author;
have a financial or professional interest in the research;
are involved in directly competing research;
have a clinical, legal, institutional, or commercial interest in the outcome; or
have another circumstance that could reasonably affect independent judgment.

Editors are subject to equivalent conflict-of-interest requirements and must recuse themselves where appropriate.

18. Reviewer Conduct and Academic Integrity

Reviewers are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic and professional conduct.

Reviewer comments must not include:

personal attacks;
discriminatory or prejudicial language;
defamatory statements;
inappropriate ideological judgments; or
demands unrelated to the academic quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to identify potential:

plagiarism;
fabrication or falsification of data;
inappropriate statistical practices;
unsupported clinical or health claims;
inappropriate citation practices;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
ethical deficiencies; and
other research integrity concerns.

Reviewers should not pressure authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless such citations are genuinely relevant and academically justified.

19. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, unpublished health data, patient information, research materials, and other sensitive content.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, patient-related information, unpublished datasets, or other protected research materials to publicly accessible or third-party artificial intelligence systems where such use could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or research integrity.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

20. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, scholarly significance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

commercial interests;
pharmaceutical or healthcare industry interests;
political pressure;
institutional influence;
personal relationships;
financial interests;
ideological preferences;
nationality or geographic origin; or
anticipated commercial or reputational benefits.

The editorial team retains independent responsibility for the integrity of the publication process.

21. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they have reasonable grounds to believe that:

a significant factual error occurred during peer review;
a reviewer had an undisclosed conflict of interest;
the manuscript was assessed on grounds unrelated to academic merit;
significant methodological or ethical information was overlooked; or
the established peer review procedure was materially violated.

Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and, where possible, supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor will review the appeal. Where necessary, an additional independent assessment may be obtained.

An appeal does not automatically result in reversal of the original decision.

22. Post-Publication Concerns

The journal recognizes that peer review cannot eliminate every possible error or research integrity concern.

Concerns arising after publication may be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

Depending on the findings, the journal may publish:

a correction;
an editorial note;
an expression of concern; or
a retraction.

Where appropriate, post-publication actions will be taken to protect patients, research participants, authors, readers, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

23. Review Timeline

The journal seeks to maintain an efficient review process while prioritizing rigorous academic assessment.

As a general target, the journal aims to:

complete initial editorial screening within approximately 2–4 weeks;
obtain external peer reviews within approximately 4–8 weeks, where reviewer availability permits; and
communicate editorial decisions to authors as promptly as reasonably possible.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, ethical assessment, revision requirements, and other editorial circumstances.

24. Final Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions and for ensuring that the peer review process is conducted fairly, independently, consistently, and ethically.

The journal regards peer review as a shared scholarly responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, healthcare and research communities, and the wider academic community.

Through rigorous double-blind peer review, Indonesian Health Justice Review seeks to ensure that published research makes an original, credible, ethically responsible, methodologically rigorous, and substantive contribution to international scholarship on health, healthcare systems, human rights, and health justice.