Peer Review Process

All manuscripts will be subject to editorial review and double blind peer reviews. Papers that do not meet the criteria for inclusion or are otherwise inappropriate will be rejected without external review. Manuscripts judged to be appropriate for inclusion in the MJHR are sent for formal review. Typically two experts review each paper, however they may be subjected to more advanced scrutiny if more specialised advice is needed in regards to 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) Invite the authors to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns, (3) Reject the article outright, typically on grounds of lack of originality, insufficient conceptual advancements or major technical and/or interpretational problems. Any changes made to the original manuscript will be clearly stated for the authors to review. The authors should carefully examine sentence structure, the completeness and accuracy of the text, references, tables, and graphic contents of the revised manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will have the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit articles on all aspects of style, format, and clarity. Manuscripts with excessive errors in any aspect, i.e. spelling or punctuation, will be returned to authors for revision before resubmission or may be rejected entirely.

The MJHR welcomes recommendations from reviewers regarding edits to prospective manuscripts, however in the event of conflicting advice from reviewers, the editors will make a final decision 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. The MJHR'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 where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on certain points. Therefore reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice when requested. Editors are aware that reviewers may be reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes and will keep consultations to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the editors consider this as a commitment to review subsequent revisions if necessary and the editors will not resubmit a paper back to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the initial concerns. The MJHR take reviewers' feedback and criticisms seriously, in particular editors are very 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.

{ top }

Publication Frequency

Makara Journal of Health Research is published 3 times per year (April, August, December).

{ top }

Authorship and Plagiarism

Authorship of articles should be limited to those who have contributed sufficiently to take public responsibility for the contents. These contributions include (a) conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, or both; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (c) final approval of the version to be published; and (d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Submission to the MJHR is interpreted by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed with all of the articles content. The corresponding (submitting) author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached, and for managing all communication between the journal and co-authors before and after publication. Any requests for changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors needs to be accompanied by a letter signed by all original authors. The letter should be scanned and e-mailed to mjhr@ui.ac.id by the submitting author. The MJHR editors assume that on multi-group collaborations, one member of each collaboration, usually the most senior member of each submitting group has accepted responsibility for the contributions to the manuscript from their team.

It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that:

1. The article is an original work and does not involve fraud, fabrication, or plagiarism.
2. The article has not been published previously and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. If accepted by the MJHR, the article will not be submitted for publication to any other journal.
3. The article contains no defamatory or unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that infringe upon individual privacy, proprietary rights, or any statutory copyright.
4. They have written permission from owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources from where they were obtained.
5. All authors have made significant contributions to the study including the conception and design of the article, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript.
6. All authors have reviewed the manuscript, take responsibility for its content and approve its publication
7. All authors are aware of and agree to the terms of this publishing agreement.

Every article submitted to the MJHR is screened by iThenticate software.

Potential conflict of interest for reviewers. The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: ‘If you know, or think you know, the identity of the author, or if you feel there is any potential conflict of interest in your reviewing this paper (e.g. friendship or conflict/rivalry) please declare it immediately. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest.' If a conflict of interest has been declared, standard policy declares that an alternate reviewer must be used however this is at the editors' discretion.

{ top }

Confidentiality

Editors of the MJHR treat all submitted manuscripts and communication with authors and reviewers as confidential. It is expected that authors will also treat communication with the journal as confidential. Correspondence with the journal, reviewers' reports, and other confidential material must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicised without prior permission from the editors, regardless of if the submission is published or not.

{ top }

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed in articles and creative pieces published in the MJHR are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or the publisher.

{ top }

Publication Charges

The MJHR is an open access journal; it does not charge readers or institutes for access. There are no charges for submission of a manuscript, article processing, publication of manuscripts or colour reproduction of photographs.

{ top }

Gen AI Policy

Makara Journal of Health Research (MJHR) is referring to the Elsevier's Generative AI policies for journals. These policies were initially triggered by the rise of generative AI  and AI-assisted technologies, which were expected to increasingly be used by researchers and have now been updated to reflect evolving good practice. These policies aim to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, reviewers, editors, readers and contributors.

{ top }

For authors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation - an overview

MJHR recognizes the potential of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (“AI Tools”), when used responsibly, to help researchers work efficiently, gain critical insights fast, and achieve better outcomes. Increasingly, these tools, including AI agents and deep research tools, are helping researchers to synthesize complex literature, provide an overview of a field or research question, identify research gaps, generate ideas, and provide tailored support for tasks such as content organization and improving language and readability.

Authors preparing a manuscript for MJHR can use AI Tools to support them. However, these tools must never be used as a substitute for human critical thinking, expertise, and evaluation. AI Tools should always be applied with human oversight and control.

Ultimately, authors are responsible and accountable for the contents of their work. This includes accountability for:

• Carefully reviewing and verifying the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and impartiality of all AI-generated output (including checking the sources, as AI-generated references can be incorrect or fabricated).
• Editing and adapting all material thoroughly to ensure the manuscript represents the author’s authentic and original contribution and reflects their own analysis, interpretation, insights, and ideas.
• Ensuring the use of any tools or sources, AI-based or otherwise, is made clear and transparent to readers — for the use of AI Tools, we require a disclosure statement upon submission.
• Ensuring the manuscript is developed in a way that safeguards data privacy, intellectual property, and other rights, by checking the terms and conditions of any AI Tool that is used.

{ top }

Responsible use of AI Tools

Authors must check the terms and conditions of any AI Tool that they use to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of their data and inputs, including their unpublished manuscripts, is maintained. Particular care should be taken with any personally identifiable data. Images that duplicate or refer to existing copyrighted images, real people, or others’ identifiable products or brands must not be generated, nor any likeness of an individual’s voice. Authors should check for factual errors and for any potential bias.

Authors should also check the terms and conditions of any AI Tool they wish to use to ensure that, they only grant to the AI Tool the right to use their materials to provide the service to them and that they do not grant to the AI Tool any other rights to the materials that they input into the AI Tool (including without limitation the right to train the AI Tool on those materials). They must also ensure that the AI Tool does not impose constraints on the use of outputs from the AI Tool in a way that could restrict the subsequent publication of the relevant article.

{ top }

Disclosure

Authors should disclose the use of AI Tools for manuscript preparation in a separate AI declaration statement in their manuscript upon submission, and a statement will appear in the published work. Authors should document their use of AI, including the name of the AI Tool used, the purpose of the use, and the extent of their oversight. Declaring the use of AI Tools supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant AI Tool. Basic checks of grammar, spelling, and punctuation need no declaration. AI use in the research process should be declared and described in detail in the methods section.

{ top }

Authorship

Authors should not list AI Tools as an author or co-author, nor cite AI Tools as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved, and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original and has not been previously published, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third-party rights, and should familiarize themselves with MJHR’s Ethics in Publishing policy before they submit.

{ top }

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images and artwork

We do not permit the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This may include enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Image forensics tools or specialized software might be applied to submitted manuscripts to identify suspected image irregularities.

The only exception is if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research design or research methods (such as in AI-assisted imaging approaches to generate or interpret the underlying research data, for example, in the field of biomedical imaging). If this is done, such use must be described in a reproducible manner in the methods section. This should include an explanation of how the AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the image creation or alteration process, and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors should adhere to the AI software’s specific usage policies and ensure correct content attribution. Where applicable, authors could be asked to provide pre-AI-adjusted versions of images and/or the composite raw images used to create the final submitted versions, for editorial assessment.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork, such as for graphical abstracts, is not permitted. The use of generative AI in the production of cover art may, in some cases, be allowed if the author obtains prior permission from the journal editor and publisher, can demonstrate that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of the relevant material, and ensures that there is correct content attribution.

{ top }

For reviewers

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process

When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review reports into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and MJHR abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review is outside of the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

{ top }

For editors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal editorial process

A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript, including any notification or decision letters, as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, editors should not upload their letters into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and MJHR abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for this work is outside of the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision, and the communication thereof to the authors.

MJHR states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process before submission, but only with appropriate oversight and disclosure, as per our instructions. Editors can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references. If an editor suspects that an author or a reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the publisher.

{ top }