this is the header

Health Information : Jurnal Penelitian

ISSN: 2622-5905 Publisher: Poltekkes Kemenkes Kendari

Below you find an overview of the entire set of editorial procedures of this journal. The overview highlights the procedures applied by the journal while also indicating procedures currently not in place at the journal. The procedures presented are based on information submitted by the journal’s representatives. PREP is hence not responsible for any inaccuracies in the below description. For almost all questions, journal editors were able to select multiple answers. In case editorial models are conditional, e.g. on authors’ or reviewers’ choices, multiple answers should be selected, which explains why some journals offer multiple, seemingly incommensurable, models.

The information for this journal was last updated on September 16, 2020.

Timing and selectiveness

At what stage of the publication process does review take place?

Post-publication review
Pre-publication review
No review takes place
Pre-submission review (including registered reports)

What quality criteria does your journal use for peer review?

Methodological rigour and correctness
Anticipated impact (either within or outside of science)
Novelty
Fit with journal's scope
Other
Openness of review

What type of reviewers are included in your journal's peer review process?

Commercial review platforms
Editor-in-chief
Wider community / readers
Editorial committee
External reviewers suggested and selected by editor(s)
External reviewers suggested by authors

To what extent are authors anonimised in your journal's review process?

Author identities are blinded to editor and reviewer
Author identities are blinded to reviewer but known to editor
Author identities are known to editor and reviewer

To what extent are reviewers anonimised in your journal's review process?

Reviewers are anonymous (both to authors and other reviewers as well as to readers of the published manuscript)
Reviewer identities are known to other reviewers of the same manuscript
Reviewer identities are known to the authors
Reviewer identities are known to the readers of the published manuscript

To what extent are review reports accessible?

Review reports are accessible to authors and editors
Review reports are accessible to other reviewers
Review reports are accessible to readers of the published manuscript
Review reports are publicly accessible

To what extent does your journal's review process allow for interaction between reviewers and authors?

No direct interaction between authors and reviewers is facilitated apart from communicating review reports and author responses via editors
Interaction between reviewers is facilitated
Author's responses to review reports are communicated to the reviewer
Interaction between authors and reviewers is facilitated (on top of formal review reports and formal responses to review reports)
Specialisation of review

To what extent is your journal's review process structured?

Structured: Review occurs through mandatory forms or checklists to be filled out by reviewers
Unstructured: reviewers are free to choose how to organise their review and are not presented questions or criteria for judgement
Semi-structured: Reviewers are guided by some (open) questions or are presented several criteria for judgement

To what extent does your journal's review process use specialist statistical review?

Not applicable (statistics does not play a role in my journal's research area)
No special attention is given to statistical review
Incorporated in review (assessing statistics is part of reviewer's and editor's tasks)
Statistical review is performed by an additional, specialist reviewer
Statistics review is performed through automatic computer software

To what extent does your journal accept or use reviews from external sources?

No reviews from external sources are used
Reviews from other (partner) journals accompanying manuscripts rejected elsewhere are used
Reviews from commercial review platforms are used
Reviews performed by the wider community (i.e. not by invited or targeted reviewers) are used (e.g. reviews on public forums)
Other
Technological support in review

What forms of digital tools are used in your journal's review process?

No digital tools are used
Digital tools to check references are used (e.g. to check for references to retracted articles, or references to articles published in predatory journals)
Plagiarism detection software is used
Digital tools to assess validity or consistency of statistics are used
Digital tools to detect image manipulation are used
Other

To what extent does your journal's review process allow for reader commentary after publication of a manuscript?

No direct reader commentary is facilitated
Reader commentary is facilitated on the journal's website
Out-of-channel reader commentary is facilitated (e.g. by providing links to commentary on other platforms such as PubPeer)