Review Process Policy

The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia (JRKI) implements a rigorous peer-review process as an essential component of its commitment to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, originality, and academic contribution of all published articles.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial evaluation followed by assessment by qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area of the manuscript.

The peer-review process is conducted objectively, independently, constructively, and in accordance with established principles of research integrity and publication ethics.

Decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection are made by the Editorial Board based on editorial assessments, reviewers' recommendations, scientific merit, and the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess the following criteria:

Relevance to the aims and scope of The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia.
Compliance with the journal's author guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.
Completeness of required submission documents and information.
Clarity of manuscript structure and overall quality of scientific presentation.
Originality, scientific significance, and potential contribution to the field.
Compliance with research ethics and publication ethics standards.

The editor may reject a manuscript during the initial screening stage (desk rejection) if it falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet basic submission requirements, contains fundamental methodological deficiencies, or does not satisfy the minimum scientific and editorial standards required for further evaluation.

2. Similarity Screening and Originality Assessment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening may undergo a similarity check using plagiarism detection or text-matching software available to the journal.

The purpose of similarity screening is to assist editors in identifying potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, duplicate publication, or other concerns related to manuscript originality.

Similarity scores are not used as the sole or automatic basis for editorial decisions. The editor evaluates the nature, source, context, and extent of textual similarities before determining whether further investigation or editorial action is necessary.

Manuscripts containing substantial evidence of plagiarism, redundant publication, or serious violations of publication ethics may be rejected in accordance with the journal's ethical policies.

3. Reviewer Selection and Appointment

Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial requirements are assigned to qualified peer reviewers selected according to the following considerations:

Expertise relevant to the manuscript's research topic and scientific discipline.
Academic qualifications, professional experience, and subject-matter knowledge.
Research and publication records in the relevant field.
Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their affiliated institutions.
Ability to provide an objective, independent, timely, and constructive assessment.

Reviewers may be selected from institutions different from those of the authors to support the independence and impartiality of the evaluation process.

The editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and ensuring that the review process is conducted according to the journal's editorial standards.

4. Peer Review Model

The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review model.

Under this model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, while the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the peer-review process.

This approach is intended to minimize potential bias, protect reviewer independence, and promote fairness and objectivity in manuscript evaluation.

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based solely on their scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and scholarly contribution.

Evaluations must not be influenced by an author's identity, institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, personal background, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific merit of the research.

5. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to provide objective and comprehensive assessments of submitted manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and novelty of the research.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Clarity of research objectives, questions, and hypotheses.
Appropriateness and scientific rigor of the research methodology.
Adequacy, accuracy, and reliability of data analysis.
Consistency between research objectives, findings, and discussion.
Validity and strength of the conclusions.
Quality, relevance, and adequacy of references.
Clarity, organization, and coherence of scientific writing.
Quality and appropriateness of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
Compliance with research ethics and publication ethics standards.
Scientific significance and contribution to pharmaceutical sciences and related disciplines.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the scientific quality, clarity, and overall presentation of their manuscripts.

6. Reviewers' Recommendations

After completing the manuscript evaluation, reviewers may submit one of the following recommendations to the handling editor:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantial modifications.
Revision Required / Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions or clarifications before further editorial consideration.
Resubmit for Review / Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, additional analyses, or significant improvements and may need further peer review.
Decline Submission: The manuscript is not recommended for publication because of significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial deficiencies.

Reviewers' recommendations serve as an important basis for editorial consideration but do not automatically determine the final publication decision.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

7. Manuscript Revision Process

When revisions are required, authors will receive reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations through the journal's OJS platform.

Authors are expected to:

Carefully consider all reviewers' and editors' comments.
Revise the manuscript according to the recommendations provided.
Submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor.
Provide a clear and structured response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
Provide scientific justification when a particular recommendation cannot be implemented.

If additional time is required to complete the revisions, authors may contact the handling editor to request an extension before the specified deadline.

The editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers or appoint additional reviewers when further scientific evaluation is necessary.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

The final editorial decision regarding a submitted manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

Editorial decisions are based on a comprehensive evaluation of the following factors:

Results of the initial editorial screening.
Findings from similarity and originality assessments.
Reviewers' evaluations, comments, and recommendations.
Quality, completeness, and adequacy of manuscript revisions.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Scientific validity, originality, and potential scholarly contribution.
Compliance with research integrity and publication ethics requirements.

Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, a request for further revision, or rejection.

All decisions are made independently and are based on scientific merit and established editorial standards.

9. Disagreements Between Reviewers

When reviewers provide substantially different or conflicting evaluations, the editor may take appropriate measures to ensure a fair and well-informed editorial decision.

Such measures may include:

Inviting an additional independent reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.
Requesting clarification or further justification from the reviewers.
Conducting an independent editorial assessment of the manuscript.
Considering the overall scientific evidence, methodological rigor, and relevance of the reviewers' comments.

The editor will evaluate the available recommendations collectively rather than relying solely on the number of positive or negative recommendations.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

10. Confidentiality of the Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process and after its completion.

Reviewers are not permitted to:

Share or distribute the manuscript to unauthorized individuals without prior editorial permission.
Use unpublished information, research findings, or data for personal or professional advantage.
Disclose confidential information concerning the manuscript or its authors.
Cite, reproduce, or otherwise use unpublished research findings without appropriate authorization.
Discuss manuscript content with third parties without the editor's approval.

Confidentiality obligations remain in effect even after the review process has concluded, regardless of the final editorial decision.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must promptly disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independence or objectivity.

Conflicts of interest may arise from professional, academic, personal, institutional, financial, or other relationships involving the authors, their affiliated institutions, or the research under evaluation.

Reviewers who identify such conflicts must notify the handling editor before accepting or continuing the review assignment.

Where a conflict of interest may affect the fairness or integrity of the assessment, the reviewer may be required to withdraw from the review process and be replaced by another qualified reviewer.

The Editorial Board is responsible for managing potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

12. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.

All reviewers are expected to:

Conduct manuscript evaluations objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively.
Provide clear, specific, evidence-based, and actionable comments.
Focus criticism on the scientific content rather than the authors personally.
Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscripts and related editorial communications.
Identify relevant published literature that may have been overlooked, where appropriate.
Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
Complete assigned reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Inform the editor promptly if they lack sufficient expertise, experience, or time to complete the review.
Disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence their assessment.
Uphold professional standards and ethical principles throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not use their position to obtain personal, academic, or professional advantages from unpublished materials.

13. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical compliance of their submitted manuscripts.

Authors must:

Submit original scholarly work that has not been published previously or submitted simultaneously to another journal, except where appropriately disclosed and permitted.
Present research data, methods, findings, and interpretations accurately and transparently.
Disclose research funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest.
Obtain ethical approval and informed consent when required by applicable research regulations and ethical standards.
Respond professionally and adequately to reviewers' comments and editorial requests.
Make manuscript revisions honestly, transparently, and in accordance with scientific standards.
Ensure that all listed authors meet the journal's authorship criteria and have approved the submitted manuscript.
Promptly inform the editor of any significant errors or ethical concerns identified during the editorial process.

Authors are expected to cooperate with editors and reviewers to ensure a fair, transparent, and effective evaluation process.

14. Peer Review Timeline

The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia strives to conduct editorial screening and peer review efficiently while maintaining high standards of scientific rigor and evaluation quality.

The time required to complete the review process may vary depending on several factors, including:

Availability and responsiveness of qualified reviewers.
Complexity and scientific scope of the submitted research.
Extent of revisions required.
Timeliness of authors' responses.
Need for additional reviews or further editorial assessment.

The journal aims to communicate editorial decisions and revision requests within a reasonable timeframe.

However, the duration of the peer-review process is not guaranteed and may vary among manuscripts.

15. Editorial Integrity and Independence

The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia is committed to maintaining editorial independence, impartiality, transparency, and ethical integrity throughout the manuscript evaluation and publication process.

Editors and reviewers must not discriminate against authors based on personal identity, institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, gender, or other factors unrelated to scientific quality.

Editorial decisions must be based exclusively on the manuscript's:

Scientific quality and methodological rigor.
Originality and research significance.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Accuracy and reliability of research findings.
Contribution to pharmaceutical sciences and related disciplines.
Compliance with ethical standards and publication policies.

Editors and reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of academic freedom, fairness, confidentiality, and responsible scholarly communication.

16. Peer Review Workflow

The general peer-review workflow of The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia consists of the following stages:

Manuscript Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Similarity Check → Reviewer Selection → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Manuscript Revision (if required) → Re-review (if required) → Final Editorial Decision → Copyediting and Production → Publication

Workflow Description

Stage 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's OJS platform in accordance with the journal's submission guidelines.

Stage 2: Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team evaluates the manuscript's relevance, completeness, formatting, scientific quality, and compliance with publication ethics.

Stage 3: Similarity Check

The manuscript may be examined using similarity detection software to identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or duplicate publication.

Stage 4: Reviewer Selection

The editor appoints qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Stage 5: Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers independently assess the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, methodology, and contribution to the field.

Stage 6: Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers' recommendations and determines whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

Stage 7: Manuscript Revision

When revisions are requested, authors revise the manuscript and provide detailed responses to reviewers' comments.

Stage 8: Re-review

Revised manuscripts may undergo further evaluation by the original reviewers or additional reviewers, where necessary.

Stage 9: Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final decision based on the manuscript's scientific merit, review outcomes, and adequacy of revisions.

Stage 10: Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, formatting, and other necessary production procedures.

Stage 11: Publication

Following completion of the editorial and production processes, the article is published in accordance with the journal's publication schedule and open access policy.

The Editorial Board may adjust specific stages of the workflow when necessary, depending on the characteristics, complexity, and editorial requirements of individual manuscripts.

17. Final Statement

Through the implementation of an objective, independent, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process, The Jurnal Riset Kefarmasian Indonesia seeks to ensure that all published articles meet appropriate academic and scientific standards.

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of scholarly communication by promoting fairness, transparency, research quality, and responsible editorial decision-making.

By upholding these principles, JRKI aims to publish reliable, original, and scientifically meaningful research that contributes to the advancement of pharmaceutical sciences and related healthcare disciplines.