Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI)

Peer Review Process and Policy

Editorial independence • Research integrity • Constructive scholarly evaluation

Current review model: Double-blind peer review, introduced in 2026. Before 2026, MKI used a single-blind peer review system. This change applies prospectively and does not alter the review procedures used for earlier manuscripts.

1. Policy and Objectives

Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI) is committed to ensuring the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of published manuscripts through an independent, fair, rigorous, and constructive peer review process. Editorial assessment is based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, research ethics, and the manuscript's contribution to nursing knowledge and practice.

MKI adopted double-blind peer review in 2026, replacing the single-blind approach used in previous years. Under the current system, authors and reviewers do not receive each other's identities during peer review. Editors may access identifying information as necessary to manage submissions, verify disclosures, and address ethical concerns. Because complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, all participants must also observe strict confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All newly submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary assessment by the editorial office or an assigned editor before being sent for external review. Screening includes:

• Alignment with the journal's aims, scope, and intended readership.
• Originality, research relevance, scientific contribution, and potential interest beyond a narrowly local context.
• Appropriateness of the study design, methods, reporting, and interpretation.
• Compliance with Author Guidelines, reporting requirements, and manuscript preparation instructions.
• Research ethics, authorship and conflict-of-interest disclosures, and similarity screening.
• Completeness of the anonymized manuscript and separately submitted title page.
• Clarity of the English title, abstract, and other required English-language content.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, have serious scientific or ethical deficiencies, or do not meet minimum editorial requirements may be declined without external peer review. Where deficiencies are correctable, the editor may request corrections before proceeding.

3. Editor Assignment and Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to an Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or other designated handling editor. The handling editor ordinarily invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in nursing or related health sciences. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialist or methodological opinions are needed.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, scholarly experience, independence, and availability. Editorial staff seek reviewers from institutions independent of the authors whenever reasonably possible. Reviewers must disclose any relationship that could affect their impartiality, including recent research collaboration, employment at the same institution, supervisory relationships, or personal, professional, academic, or financial interests. Editors with conflicts of interest must not manage the affected decision.

4. Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality

For manuscripts processed under the double-blind policy, authors must submit an anonymous manuscript that omits names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information, with a separate title page containing author details. File names, document properties, tracked changes, reviewer files, and supplementary material made available during review should not disclose the identity of either party.

Editors check materials intended for reviewers and may request replacement files when anonymity is compromised. Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to identify authors. If an identity becomes apparent or a potential conflict emerges, the reviewer must notify the editor. Unpublished manuscripts, review comments, and related correspondence must be treated as confidential and must not be shared or used for personal advantage.

5. Scientific Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive evaluation addressing:

1. Originality, novelty, relevance, and contribution to nursing research, education, management, or clinical practice.
2. Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and theoretical or empirical justification.
3. Suitability of research design, sampling, instruments, interventions, and analytical methods.
4. Transparency of results, appropriate interpretation, and consistency between findings and conclusions.
5. Use of current, relevant literature and meaningful engagement with international research.
6. Ethical approval, informed consent, integrity of research reporting, and applicable reporting guidelines.
7. Clarity, organization, and accuracy of scientific writing.

Reviewers should distinguish essential scientific concerns from optional editorial suggestions. They may identify language problems that obscure scientific meaning, but copyediting is not the primary responsibility of reviewers. Citation suggestions must be relevant and justified, and must not be used to inflate citation counts.

6. Editorial Decisions in OJS 2

After considering the reviewer reports, the handling editor records an editorial decision through Open Journal Systems (OJS) 2. MKI uses the following four editorial decision categories:

7. Reviewer Recommendations versus Editorial Decisions

Reviewers make recommendations; they do not make the journal's final editorial decision. OJS 2 may display the following reviewer recommendation options:

The handling editor evaluates the substance of all reports, not simply the number of reviewers supporting a recommendation. Divergent evaluations may lead to further editorial assessment or an additional independent review. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

8. Author Revision and Further Review

When revisions are requested, authors should upload the revised manuscript through OJS 2, together with a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Authors should identify revised sections and provide scholarly justification when a recommendation is not adopted.

For Revisions Required, the handling editor checks the revised material and may request further correction if outstanding issues remain. For Resubmit for Review, the revised manuscript is evaluated in a new review round. A manuscript may be declined if material scientific or ethical deficiencies persist, even after one or more revision rounds.

9. Ethical Oversight and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must act impartially and maintain the confidentiality of submitted work. Editorial decisions are made independently of author nationality, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, financial arrangements, and article processing charges. Reviewers must not use confidential submissions for their own research or demand irrelevant citations.

Concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, or other potential misconduct will be assessed under MKI's publication ethics policies, with reference to applicable Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance. Authors may seek clarification about editorial decisions through the journal's official correspondence channels.

10. Transparency and Continuous Improvement

MKI periodically reviews its screening procedures, reviewer selection, review quality, editorial decisions, confidentiality safeguards, and research integrity practices. The 2026 transition from single-blind to double-blind peer review is part of the journal's continuing efforts to improve editorial independence and scientific evaluation in response to evolving scholarly publishing standards.

All editorial policies are implemented prospectively and should be applied consistently across journal webpages, Author Guidelines, Reviewer Guidelines, editorial communications, and the OJS 2 workflow.

Media Keperawatan Indonesia — Editorial Office

This policy describes the current peer review procedures and the editorial decision categories used in the journal's OJS 2 workflow.