The Journal of Midwifery Science and Women\'s Health (JMSWH) applies a peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication. The peer review process is designed to provide an objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts and to support editorial decisions regarding publication.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and basic submission requirements may be sent to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.
The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and transparency of the peer review process in accordance with recognized publication ethics standards.
Upon submission to Journal of Midwifery Science and Women\'s Health (JMSWH), each manuscript is examined by the editorial team to determine whether it meets the journal's basic requirements. The initial assessment may include:
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript preparation requirements.
Completeness of the required submission documents.
Preliminary assessment of originality and potential plagiarism.
Consideration of ethical requirements, including research ethics approval and informed consent where applicable.
General assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality, relevance, and suitability for further review.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. The editor may also return a manuscript to the author for technical corrections before proceeding to the next stage.
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process.
For a double-blind peer review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Authors are therefore required to ensure that their manuscripts and supplementary files do not contain information that unnecessarily reveals their identities.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an independent and objective assessment of the manuscript.
The editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and ensuring that the review process is conducted fairly and professionally.
Each manuscript considered for external review is evaluated by qualified reviewers appointed by the editor. The journal normally seeks assessments from at least two independent reviewers, although the number of reviewers may vary depending on the nature of the manuscript and editorial considerations.
Reviewers are expected to:
Evaluate the originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript.
Assess the validity of the research methods, analysis, interpretation of results, and conclusions.
Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked by the authors.
Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments to help improve the manuscript.
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or continuing the review.
Decline the review if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot complete it within the agreed timeframe, or have a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or disclose the manuscript's content to unauthorized parties.
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts using criteria relevant to the journal's scope and the type of article submitted. These criteria may include:
Originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript presents original findings, insights, or contributions to existing knowledge.
Relevance and significance: The importance of the research question and its contribution to the relevant scientific field.
Scientific methodology: The appropriateness and rigor of the research design, sampling procedures, instruments, data collection, and analytical methods.
Results and interpretation: The clarity, accuracy, and consistency of the results, discussion, and conclusions.
Literature review: The adequacy, relevance, and currency of the references used to support the research.
Ethical compliance: Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements, including approval from an appropriate ethics committee and informed consent where required.
Presentation and readability: The organization, clarity, language, tables, figures, and overall presentation of the manuscript.
Reviewers should provide specific comments and recommendations that support a fair and scientifically sound editorial decision.
After considering the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment, the editor will make a decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions are:
Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any necessary editorial or production adjustments.
Minor Revision: The authors are requested to make limited revisions to address the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor to determine whether the requested changes have been adequately addressed.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required to address significant concerns regarding the manuscript's methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, or other aspects. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards, falls outside the journal's scope, or has fundamental limitations that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merit, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and overall quality of the manuscript. The editor is not required to accept a manuscript solely because reviewers recommend acceptance.
When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. Authors should provide a point-by-point response to all comments from the reviewers and the editor, clearly explaining the revisions made or providing a reasoned justification when a suggestion is not adopted.
Changes made to the manuscript should be clearly indicated in the revised version, where requested by the editorial office.
Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions and the nature of the concerns raised.
If authors require additional time to revise their manuscripts, they should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline. Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or closed in accordance with the journal's procedures.
The journal strives to conduct the peer review process efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of editorial assessment.
The time required to complete the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of review rounds, and the extent of revisions required.
The journal aims to communicate editorial decisions to authors as promptly as possible. Any indicative review timelines published by the journal should be understood as targets rather than guarantees.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose the content of submitted manuscripts or discuss them with unauthorized individuals without permission from the journal.
Reviewers must not reproduce, distribute, or otherwise use unpublished manuscript materials outside the peer review process. Editors and reviewers must also handle manuscripts in accordance with applicable data protection, confidentiality, and research integrity requirements.
If potential plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or other research misconduct is suspected, the editor may conduct further inquiries and take appropriate action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to assess a manuscript objectively.
Conflicts of interest may arise from financial relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, academic competition, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.
Individuals with conflicts of interest that cannot be appropriately managed should decline the assignment or withdraw from the review process. The editor will arrange for an alternative reviewer or editorial decision-maker where necessary.
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal.
The journal's editorial decisions must be made independently of commercial interests, institutional pressure, personal relationships, or other inappropriate external influences. Where an editor has a conflict of interest involving a submitted manuscript, the manuscript will be handled by an independent editor or another appropriately appointed editorial decision-maker.
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant procedural error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a demonstrable breach of the journal's review policy may submit a written appeal to the editorial office.
Appeals must provide clear and specific reasons and, where applicable, supporting evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer's scientific opinion alone does not necessarily constitute grounds for an appeal.
Appeals will be considered by the editor-in-chief or an independent editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where appropriate. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author.
Complaints concerning the conduct of editors or reviewers will be handled fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's applicable procedures and publication ethics principles.
The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the peer review reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, compliance with ethical standards, and the journal's editorial policies.
Acceptance of a manuscript does not automatically guarantee immediate publication. Accepted manuscripts may undergo copyediting, language editing, typesetting, proofreading, and other production procedures before publication.
The journal reserves the right to withhold publication if serious ethical, legal, or scientific concerns arise before publication, in accordance with its established policies.
By submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors acknowledge that their work will be assessed in accordance with this Review Process Policy and the journal's other applicable editorial and publication ethics policies.
The journal is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and transparent peer review process that supports the advancement of reliable scientific knowledge.
Jurusan Kebidanan Poltekkes Kemenkes Jakarta I
Wijaya Kusuma street number 47-48 Cilandak - South Jakarta
Phone 021- 27656912, email: [email protected], [email protected]
e ISSN: 2747-0970 (online)
