Gema Lingkungan Kesehatan is dedicated to publishing high-quality research in the field of environmental health. To ensure the integrity, quality, and relevance of the articles we publish, we employ a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This policy outlines the procedures and standards for our peer review process, which aims to provide authors with thorough and constructive feedback within a targeted timeframe of two weeks.
Double-Blind Review Process
- Anonymity: In a double-blind review, both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous. This ensures an unbiased and impartial evaluation of the manuscript, free from any potential conflicts of interest or bias.
- Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, previous performance, and lack of conflict of interest with the manuscript’s content or authors.
Review Procedure
- Initial Screening: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to ensure they meet the journal’s scope and basic submission criteria. Manuscripts that do not comply with these requirements may be returned to the authors without external review.
- Reviewer Invitation: Suitable reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are provided with the manuscript title and abstract to ensure they have the necessary expertise and are available to complete the review within the two-week timeframe.
- Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess the manuscript based on several key criteria:
- Originality and significance of the research
- Clarity and coherence of the presentation
- Methodological rigor and validity
- Adequacy of the literature review and references
- Relevance and contribution to the field of environmental health
- Review Reports: Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations regarding the manuscript. They are asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the work, suggest improvements, and make a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Decision Making
- Editorial Decision: The editorial team reviews the feedback from all reviewers and makes a final decision on the manuscript. Decisions are based on the collective recommendations and comments provided by the reviewers.
- Possible Outcomes:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with minor revisions.
- Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Authors are provided with detailed feedback and are encouraged to address the reviewers' comments.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal. Constructive feedback is provided to help authors improve their work for submission elsewhere.
Communication with Authors
- Feedback: Authors receive detailed feedback from the reviewers and the editorial team, regardless of the decision. This feedback is intended to help authors understand the strengths and areas for improvement in their work.
- Revisions: If revisions are required, authors are given a specified period to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript. The revised manuscript may undergo additional rounds of review to ensure all concerns have been addressed.
Commitment to Timeliness
We strive to complete the review process within two weeks to ensure timely feedback and publication. This commitment to a prompt review process underscores our dedication to supporting the research community and facilitating the rapid dissemination of important findings in environmental health.