REVIEWER GUIDE

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of Mahakarya Journal of Health Sciences (MJHS). Reviewers are expected to evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, fairly, and confidentially, and to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the quality of their work. Reviews should assess the scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical standards, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting a review invitation, please consider the following:

  • Expertise: Ensure that the manuscript falls within your area of expertise. If it does not, please decline the invitation promptly and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.
  • Availability: Reviews should normally be completed within 14 days. If you require additional time, please inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may affect your ability to provide an impartial review. If a conflict exists, please decline the invitation.

Review Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects.

1. Title

  • Is the title clear, concise, and representative of the manuscript's content?

2. Abstract

  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the study?

3. Introduction

  • Does the introduction clearly explain the research background and significance?
  • Is the research problem well defined?
  • Are the objectives of the study clearly stated?
  • Does the literature review adequately support the rationale for the study?

4. Originality and Relevance

  • Does the manuscript present original findings or novel insights?
  • Does it make a meaningful contribution to the advancement of health sciences?
  • Is the topic relevant to the scope of Mahakarya Journal of Health Sciences (MJHS)?

5. Methods

Please evaluate whether:

  • The study design is appropriate.
  • Data collection methods are clearly described.
  • Sampling procedures are suitable.
  • Research instruments and materials are adequately explained.
  • Statistical analyses or qualitative analytical methods are appropriate.
  • Ethical approval and informed consent (where applicable) are clearly stated.
  • The methods are sufficiently detailed to allow replication.

6. Results

  • Are the findings presented clearly and logically?
  • Are tables and figures appropriate and easy to understand?
  • Are the statistical analyses correctly performed and reported?

7. Discussion

  • Are the findings interpreted appropriately?
  • Are the results compared with previous studies?
  • Are the strengths and limitations of the study discussed?
  • Do the conclusions logically follow from the results?

8. References

  • Are the references current and relevant?
  • Are most references derived from reputable scientific journals?
  • Are citations and references formatted according to the journal's guidelines?

9. Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript written in clear and understandable English or Bahasa Indonesia?
  • Is the manuscript well organized?
  • Is the writing scientifically sound and grammatically correct?

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should pay particular attention to:

  • Possible plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Ethical issues involving human participants or experimental animals.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Compliance with accepted research ethics.

If ethical concerns are identified, please inform the Editor confidentially.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others without prior permission from the Editor.
  • Not contact the authors directly.
  • Not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal research or professional advantage.

Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review, reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Please provide constructive comments for the authors that clearly explain the strengths, weaknesses, and recommended improvements. Separate confidential comments intended only for the Editor from comments that will be shared with the authors.