Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) must follow this journal's focus scope and author guidelines. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal using the recommended software, Ithenticate, and it must not reach the result of more than 30%.

All manuscripts will be subject to editorial review and double-blind peer reviews. Papers that meet the criteria for inclusion or are otherwise inappropriate will be accepted without external review. Manuscripts judged appropriate for inclusion in Jurnal keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) are sent for formal review. Typically, two experts review each paper; however, a paper may be subjected to more advanced scrutiny if specialized advice is needed regarding statistics or techniques. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editors will then accept or reject the papers with the following conditions: (1) accept and publish, with or without editorial revisions; (2)accept with minor or major revision, meaning invite the author(s) to revise the manuscript and address specific concerns; (3) reject the article outright, typically because of lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements, or major technical and interpretational problems.

Any changes to the original manuscript will be clearly stated for the author(s) to review. Authors should then carefully examine the sentence structure, completeness, and accuracy of the revised manuscript's text, references, tables, and graphic contents. The editors will decide on article acceptance based on the reviewers’ comments. Publication of accepted articles, including the sequence of published articles, will be made by the Editor in Chief by considering the sequence of accepted dates, geographical distribution of authors, and thematic issues. Meanwhile, The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit articles in all style, format, and clarity aspects. Manuscripts with excessive errors in any aspect, i.e., spelling, punctuation, or word count, will be returned to authors for revision before resubmission or may be rejected entirely.

Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) welcomes recommendations from reviewers regarding edits to prospective manuscripts. However, in the event of conflicting advice from reviewers, the editors will decide on the course of action. Editors will evaluate the reports from each reviewer, relevant comments made by the authors, and any other information that may not be available to either party before reaching a decision.

Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) 's primary responsibilities are to our readers and the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must assess the validity and reliability of each paper against the many others also under consideration. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other or the authors believe they need to be understood on specific points. Therefore, reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice when requested. Editors know that reviewers may be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes and will keep consultations to the minimum, as judged necessary, to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the editors consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions if necessary, and the editors will only resubmit a paper to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have made a serious attempt to address the initial concerns.

Jurnal Keperawatan Suaka Insan (JKSI) takes reviewers’ feedback and criticisms seriously, and its editors are particularly reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, editors may consult the other reviewers as to whether he or she is applying an unduly critical standard. Editors may occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes; however, we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example, a specialist technical problem.