Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for peer reviewers of Jurnal Dharmaputra Hukum Kesehatan (JDHK). We thank our reviewers for their invaluable contribution to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of health law research.

COPE Guidelines ICMJE Standards Double-Blind Review Strict Confidentiality

1. Role of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. As a reviewer for JDHK, you contribute expert, independent assessment of manuscripts submitted to the journal, helping editors make informed publication decisions and helping authors improve the quality of their work. Your review directly upholds the scientific integrity of health law research in Indonesia and beyond.

Quality Assurance

Ensure only scientifically sound and ethically conducted research is published

Constructive Feedback

Provide actionable recommendations that help authors strengthen their manuscripts

Integrity Guardian

Identify ethical concerns, methodological flaws, or misconduct before publication

Field Advancement

Contribute to the growth of health law scholarship in Indonesia and globally

2. Reviewer Eligibility & Qualifications

JDHK invites qualified academics and practitioners with relevant expertise in health law, medical ethics, public health policy, clinical medicine, or related disciplines to serve as peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and availability.

Minimum Qualifications

Hold a postgraduate degree (Master's or Doctoral) in a relevant field; Have published at least 2 peer-reviewed articles in the relevant area; Have expertise in the specific topic area of the manuscript under review; Be independent of the submitting authors and their institutions

Areas of Expertise Needed

Health law & medical legislation; Medical ethics & bioethics; Public health policy; Clinical medicine (relevant specialties); Hospital administration & health management; Patient rights & informed consent; Health data privacy & digital health law; Medical dispute resolution

Want to join our reviewer panel? Contact the Editorial Office at amerthamanuaba@gmail.com with your CV, ORCID profile, and areas of expertise. We particularly welcome reviewers with Scopus or SINTA author profiles.

3. The Review Process

JDHK uses a double-blind peer review system. Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities during the review process. All review communications are conducted exclusively through the JDHK OJS platform.

Invitation via OJS

You receive an email invitation from OJS with a summary of the manuscript (title and abstract). You are asked to accept or decline the invitation within 7 days. Please decline promptly if you have a conflict of interest or cannot complete the review on time.

Accept & Access the Manuscript

Upon acceptance, you gain access to the full manuscript (anonymised) and any supplementary files through the OJS platform. You will also receive the JDHK Reviewer Form to guide your assessment.

Conduct the Review

You have 14–28 days from acceptance to complete your review. If you require additional time, please notify the Editorial Office before the deadline. Reviews submitted after the deadline without prior notification may not be considered.

Submit Your Review via OJS

Complete the structured review form in OJS, entering your comments for the editor (confidential) and comments for the author (shared). Select your recommendation from the available options and submit.

Re-review (if applicable)

If the editor requests a revised manuscript review, you will receive a second invitation. You are not obligated to re-review but are strongly encouraged to do so to ensure continuity and fairness to the authors.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript for JDHK, please evaluate the following dimensions. Your comments should be specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Vague statements without supporting rationale are not helpful to editors or authors.

Originality & Significance

Does the manuscript make a new and meaningful contribution to the field of health law? Does it address a problem of significance? Is it substantially different from previously published work?

Scientific Accuracy

Are the claims factually correct and supported by the data or evidence presented? Are statistical analyses appropriate, correctly applied, and accurately reported? Are interpretations consistent with the results?

Methodology

Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Is the methodology described in sufficient detail for reproducibility? Are inclusion/exclusion criteria, sampling, and data collection methods clearly justified?

Ethics & Compliance

Is there evidence of appropriate ethical approval (KEPK)? Is informed consent documented? Does the manuscript comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and ICMJE requirements for studies involving human participants?

Structure & Clarity

Does the manuscript follow the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)? Is the abstract informative and structured? Are the conclusions supported by the data and discussion? Is the writing clear and concise?

References

Are references cited in Vancouver format? Are citations current, relevant, and sufficient? Are there important recent publications that have been overlooked? Are all in-text citations matched with the reference list?

5. How to Write an Effective Review

A high-quality review is specific, balanced, and constructive. It helps the editor make a well-informed decision and provides authors with clear, actionable guidance regardless of the outcome. Your review should be completed in two distinct sections: Comments to the Editor (confidential) and Comments to the Author (shared with authors).

Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

Your overall recommendation and rationale; Any concerns about research misconduct, data fabrication, or plagiarism; Concerns about authorship or undisclosed conflicts of interest; Your assessment of the manuscript's priority and suitability for JDHK; Any information you prefer not to disclose to the authors

Comments to the Author (Shared)

A brief summary of what the manuscript is about and its main contribution; Major concerns (scientific, methodological, ethical) listed and numbered; Minor concerns (language, formatting, missing citations) listed separately; Specific, numbered suggestions for improvement with reference to page and line numbers; Positive aspects of the manuscript where applicable

Characteristics of a Good Review

Specific with page/line references Scientifically justified Respectful & professional tone Balanced (strengths and weaknesses) Actionable suggestions Timely submission

What to Avoid in Your Review

Vague, unsupported criticism Unprofessional or dismissive language Requesting excessive self-citations Identity disclosure (your own or the authors') Excessive focus on language style alone Recommending rejection without clear justification

6. Recommendation Options

At the end of your review, you are required to select one of the following recommendations. Please note that the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and may differ from your recommendation, particularly when there are conflicting reviewer opinions.

Accept Submission

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only very minor corrections. No further review is needed.

Revisions Required

The manuscript has merit but requires specific revisions. You expect to re-review the revised manuscript after corrections.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires major revisions — possibly including new data collection or analysis — before it can be considered further.

Decline Submission

The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed by revision, or is not suitable for JDHK. Please provide clear reasoning.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to JDHK are confidential documents. By accepting a review invitation, you agree to treat all information about the manuscript — including its existence, contents, data, and authors' ideas — as strictly confidential in accordance with COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Do not share the manuscript with others without editorial permission Do not use unpublished data from the manuscript in your own research Do not retain copies of the manuscript after review Do not disclose your identity to the authors Do not use AI tools that submit manuscript data to external servers

Note on AI Assistance: Reviewers may use AI tools (e.g., grammar checkers) to improve the writing of their review text only. Uploading or pasting manuscript content into AI platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) violates confidentiality and is strictly prohibited. The review itself must reflect your own expert judgement.

8. Conflict of Interest

You must decline a review invitation if any of the following applies. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent after you have accepted the invitation, notify the Editorial Office immediately and withdraw from the review.

You are a co-author or collaborator of any submitting author You have co-authored with any author within the past 3 years You are from the same institution as any of the authors You have a personal or professional relationship that could bias your review You have a financial interest in the outcome of the manuscript You can identify the authors from the manuscript content

9. Ethical Responsibilities

JDHK expects all reviewers to adhere to the ethical standards set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers who are found to have violated these standards — including breaching confidentiality, conducting reviews in bad faith, or engaging in coercive citation requests — may be removed from the reviewer panel and reported to their institution.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Only accept invitations within your area of expertise; Complete reviews on time or notify the editor if you cannot; Provide honest, evidence-based assessments; Report suspected research misconduct or ethical violations to the editor; Respect author anonymity and the double-blind process; Declare any potential conflicts of interest promptly

Reporting Misconduct

If during your review you identify potential misconduct — including data fabrication, duplicate publication, undisclosed competing interests, or plagiarism — report this to the editor in the confidential "Comments to the Editor" section. Do not contact the authors directly or disclose the concern publicly.

10. Reviewer Recognition & Benefits

JDHK deeply values the time and expertise contributed by our peer reviewers. We recognise the contributions of our reviewers through the following mechanisms.

Annual Acknowledgement

All reviewers who completed at least one review during the year are acknowledged by name in the annual reviewer list published in the December issue

Certificate of Review

Reviewers may request an official Certificate of Peer Review from the Editorial Office for use in academic promotion, tenure applications, or professional portfolios

SINTA & Scopus Credit

Reviewer activity is recorded in the OJS system and may be used to support SINTA reviewer score applications and Publons/Web of Science reviewer recognition profiles

Fast-Track Consideration

Active reviewers who submit their own manuscripts to JDHK are eligible for expedited desk review as recognition of their service to the journal

Interested in Becoming a Reviewer?

Join our panel of expert reviewers and contribute to advancing health law research in Indonesia.

Apply to Become a Reviewer Meet Our Reviewers