Peer-Review Processes

Journal of Midwifery (JOM) uses double-blind peer review. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers; additional reviewers may be invited where specialized expertise is required. This policy defines how reviewers are selected and instructed, how confidentiality and conflicts are handled, and how editorial decisions are made and recorded.

1. Introduction

  • Peer review assures scientific rigor, relevance to JOM’s aims and scope, and ethical compliance.

  • The process is impartial: author and reviewer identities are concealed; decisions are based on scholarly merit, not on personal or institutional attributes.

2. Description

  • Scope of review: research articles (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods), reviews, brief reports, case reports/series, protocols, and other formats stated in the author guidelines.

  • Integrity screening: all submissions undergo initial checks for scope, formatting, plagiarism/similarity, image integrity (where applicable), and minimum ethics information before assignment to an editor.

  • Decision taxonomy: desk reject; send for review; major revision; minor revision; reject; accept.

  • Records: editorial correspondence, reviews, and decisions are retained confidentially.

3. Policy

3.1 Double-blind model

  • Authors are responsible for anonymizing manuscripts (separate title page; remove identifiers and acknowledgments; anonymize trial/site names where feasible).

  • Reviewers and editors must not attempt to reveal identities. If identities become known, they must not influence the assessment.

3.2 Reviewer assignment

  • Minimum two independent reviewers per manuscript; more may be invited for complex methods or multidisciplinary topics.

  • Selection criteria: subject expertise, methodological competence, independence from authors, prior performance and timeliness, and diversity of perspectives.

  • Editors may use author-suggested reviewers but never rely solely on them; suggested or opposed reviewers are screened for conflicts and suitability.

3.3 Conflicts of interest (COI) and recusal

  • Editors and reviewers must declare any financial or non-financial interests and recuse where appropriate (e.g., recent collaboration < 3 years, same department, personal relationships, competitive interests).

  • Submissions by editors/board members are handled by an independent editor; conflicted editors have no access to deliberations.

3.4 Confidentiality and data protection

  • Manuscripts and reviews are confidential and used only for editorial purposes.

  • Reviewers may not share or use unpublished information for personal advantage. Co-reviewing with trainees is allowed only with prior editor approval and full disclosure of co-reviewer names to the editorial office.

3.5 Reviewer conduct and expectations

  • Reviews must be evidence-based, respectful, and free of discriminatory language.

  • Core criteria: originality, methodological rigor, ethics and consent adequacy, transparency of data/code, clarity and organization, appropriateness of conclusions, and relevance to midwifery practice and JOM’s scope.

  • AI tools: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or reviews to third-party AI systems without explicit permission and safeguards (see AI policy). Any AI-assisted text in reviews must be checked and remains the reviewer’s responsibility.

3.6 Timelines

  • Typical reviewer deadline: 14–21 days. Extensions may be granted on request to preserve review quality.

  • Authors are given reasonable time to revise (commonly 14–30 days for minor/major revisions); extensions may be granted for substantive analyses or additional ethics tasks.

3.7 Revisions and re-review

  • Authors submit a point-by-point response indicating changes with page/line references; revised manuscripts may be returned to some or all reviewers.

  • If new data/analyses substantially change conclusions, additional review may be sought.

3.8 Integrity checks during review

  • Editors may run similarity or image checks pre- and post-review; discrepancies or concerns (e.g., paper-mill indicators, data anomalies, undisclosed trial registration) may trigger the Allegations of Misconduct process.

  • Ethical Oversight, Data & Reproducibility, and Conflicts policies are applied before acceptance.

3.9 Appeals and complaints

  • Authors may appeal decisions on defined grounds (procedural error, material misunderstanding, or new evidence); an independent editor reviews the appeal (see Complaints & Appeals policy).

3.10 Recognition and records

  • Reviewer identities remain confidential. JOM may provide reviewer certificates on request and track service internally for recognition.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1 Author preparation for double-blind submission

  • Upload Title Page (authors, affiliations, corresponding author contact, funding, COIs) as a separate file.

  • Main Manuscript: remove names/affiliations, self-citations written in third person, redact identifiable site details when feasible, and omit acknowledgments (to be added post-acceptance).

  • Provide required ethics approvals/consents, trial registration, and Data Availability Statement.

4.2 Reviewer selection workflow

  1. Handling editor screens for expertise and COI; verifies institutional emails where possible.

  2. Invitations include scope, abstract, due date, and COI/confidentiality statements.

  3. Non-responses are chased; if declined or overdue, alternates are invited to maintain timelines.

4.3 Review content expectations

  • Structured feedback on: significance; originality; methods (design, sampling, statistics/analysis, trustworthiness for qualitative work); ethics/consent; data and code availability; results; discussion and limitations; clarity; references; practice implications.

  • Specific, actionable recommendations for improvement; avoid prescriptive citation requests unless directly justified.

4.4 Decision writing

  • Editors synthesize reviewer input, their own assessment, and policy checks into a clear decision letter with justifications and required actions.

  • Conflicting reviews may prompt a third review or senior editorial adjudication.

4.5 Special article types

  • Protocols: assess feasibility, ethical readiness, and analysis plans.

  • Qualitative research: assess reflexivity, sampling rationale, saturation/adequacy, audit trail, and COREQ/STROBE-qual items.

  • Case reports/series: confirm consent to publish identifiable content and educational value.

4.6 Post-acceptance verification

  • Editorial office verifies licenses, funding and COI statements, ethics approvals, trial registration, and Data Availability Statements.

  • Figures/tables are checked for rights and permissions (see Intellectual Property policy).

4.7 Sanctions and policy breaches

  • Breaches of confidentiality, COI nondisclosure, or manipulation of the review process may lead to reviewer removal, reporting to institutions, and manuscript rejection/retraction where applicable.

Related and supporting policies

Contact

Peer-review process queries: jom@med.unand.ac.id

Back to Publication Ethics main page: https://jom.fk.unand.ac.id/index.php/jom/ethics