Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for Husada, your primary role is to critically assess manuscripts within your field of expertise and provide constructive, impartial, and evidence-based feedback. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to public health and related health sciences.

Reviewers should provide constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript while maintaining objectivity and confidentiality. The review should focus on the scientific content and contribution of the manuscript, including the appropriateness of the research design, data collection, statistical or qualitative analysis, interpretation of findings, and relevance to health practice, policy, education, and further research.

Before Reviewing

1. Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?

If you receive a manuscript outside your area of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible. You may recommend an alternative reviewer who has appropriate expertise in the relevant health discipline, such as epidemiology, biostatistics, health administration, public health nutrition, environmental health, occupational health and safety, health promotion, reproductive health, maternal and child health, or other related health sciences.

2. Do you have sufficient time to review the manuscript?

The review process should be completed within two weeks. If you need additional time, please inform the editor immediately. If you are unable to complete the review within the designated period, you may decline the invitation or suggest another qualified reviewer.

3. Are there any conflicts of interest?

Before accepting the review, please disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editor. This may include personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationships with the authors or their institutions that could influence your objectivity.

If you are uncertain whether a potential conflict constitutes a conflict of interest, please contact the editorial office for guidance.

Review Process

When reviewing the manuscript, please consider the following aspects:

Title

• Does the title accurately and clearly represent the main topic, population, variables, and/or health issue investigated?

• Is the title concise, informative, and consistent with the content of the manuscript?

• Does the title reflect the scope of health sciences and the specific focus of the study?

Abstract

• Does the abstract clearly describe the background or problem, objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions?

• Are the methods sufficiently represented, including the study design, population/sample, and analytical approach where appropriate?

• Are the main findings presented clearly and consistently with the results section?

• Does the conclusion accurately reflect the findings without making unsupported claims?

• Are keywords relevant and representative of the manuscript?

Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly explain the health problem or research issue?

• Is the background supported by relevant and recent scientific literature?

• Does the manuscript identify an appropriate research gap or rationale?

• Are the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses clearly stated?

• Does the introduction establish the relevance of the study to public health or related health sciences?

Content Evaluation

Originality and Suitability for Husada

• Is the manuscript original and does it provide a meaningful contribution to health sciences?

• Does the study provide new findings, evidence, methods, perspectives, or applications?

• Is there a risk of plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work?

• Is the manuscript appropriate for the scope and readership of Husada?

• Does the manuscript address a relevant health issue with potential scientific, practical, educational, or policy significance?

Scope

• Does the article fit within the scope of Husada, including:

  • Health epidemiology

  • Health biostatistics

  • Health administration

  • Public health nutrition

  • Environmental health

  • Occupational health and safety

  • Health promotion

  • Reproductive health

  • Maternal and child health

  • Other related health sciences

• Is the topic relevant to current health problems, practices, policies, or scientific developments?

• Does the manuscript have potential relevance for health practitioners, health caregivers, educators, students, researchers, policymakers, or other readers interested in health issues?

Research Quality

• Does the study address a clearly defined and relevant health problem?

• Is the research question appropriate and sufficiently focused?

• Does the study make a meaningful contribution to the relevant health discipline?

• Are the findings adequately supported by the data?

• Are the interpretations consistent with the study design and available evidence?

• Are limitations appropriately identified and discussed?

Methodology

Research Design and Methods

• Is the research design appropriate for the research question or objective?

• Is the methodology clearly and sufficiently described to allow the study to be understood and, where applicable, replicated?

• Are the study setting, population, participants, variables, and procedures clearly described?

• Are the data collection procedures appropriate and adequately explained?

• For quantitative studies, are the statistical methods appropriate for the type and distribution of data?

• For qualitative studies, are the data collection and analytical procedures appropriate and sufficiently described?

• For mixed-methods studies, are the quantitative and qualitative components appropriately integrated?

Sampling and Participants

• Is the target population clearly defined?

• Is the sampling method appropriate for the study design?

• Is the sample size adequately justified where applicable?

• Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated?

• Are potential sources of selection bias or sampling bias appropriately addressed?

• For qualitative research, is the participant selection appropriate for achieving the research objectives?

Measurement and Data Quality

• Are the variables and indicators clearly defined?

• Are measurement instruments or data collection tools appropriate and adequately described?

• Where applicable, are the validity and reliability of instruments addressed?

• Are procedures for ensuring data quality adequately explained?

• Are potential sources of measurement error, information bias, or confounding considered?

Data Analysis

• Are the analytical methods appropriate for the research design and type of data?

• Are statistical tests correctly selected and applied?

• Are assumptions for statistical analyses appropriately considered where relevant?

• Are effect sizes, confidence intervals, p-values, or other appropriate measures reported when necessary?

• For qualitative studies, is the analytical process systematic, transparent, and appropriate?

• Are the results presented without inappropriate overinterpretation?

Results

Clarity and Presentation of Results

• Are the findings clearly and logically presented?

• Do the results directly address the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses?

• Are the results consistent with the methodology described?

• Are statistical findings accurately reported and interpreted?

• Are qualitative findings supported by appropriate evidence from the collected data?

• Are important findings sufficiently explained without unnecessary repetition?

• Are unexpected or contradictory findings appropriately reported?

Tables and Figures

• Are tables, figures, graphs, and other visual elements necessary and relevant?

• Are they clearly presented and easy to understand?

• Do they accurately represent the findings?

• Are titles, labels, units, legends, and notes sufficiently clear?

• Is information unnecessarily duplicated between the text and tables or figures?

Discussion and Conclusion

Interpretation of Results

• Does the discussion appropriately interpret the major findings?

• Are the findings compared with relevant previous studies and scientific literature?

• Does the author explain similarities, differences, and possible reasons for inconsistent findings?

• Are the interpretations supported by the study data and relevant theoretical or scientific perspectives?

• Does the discussion appropriately address the implications of the findings for health practice, public health, education, or policy where relevant?

• Are limitations and their potential impact on the findings adequately discussed?

• Does the manuscript avoid making causal claims when the study design does not support causal inference?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion directly answer the research objectives or questions?

• Is the conclusion supported by the findings?

• Does it avoid introducing new information that was not presented in the results?

• Does it provide appropriate implications or recommendations based on the evidence?

• Are recommendations realistic and proportionate to the findings?

Writing Style

• Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, and scientifically appropriate language?

• Is the terminology appropriate for the relevant health discipline?

• Is the manuscript logically structured and easy to follow?

• Are grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and academic writing conventions appropriately maintained?

• Are abbreviations and technical terms clearly defined when first introduced?

• Does the manuscript avoid ambiguous, exaggerated, or unsupported statements?

References

• Are the references relevant to the topic and research objectives?

• Are the references sufficiently current and representative of important scientific literature?

• Do the references adequately support the statements and arguments made in the manuscript?

• Are relevant recent studies included where appropriate?

• Are citations and references consistently formatted according to the journal's requirements?

• Are there signs of excessive self-citation or inappropriate citation practices?

Ethical Issues

Research Ethics

• Has the study obtained ethical approval where required?

• Is the relevant ethics approval information clearly stated in the manuscript?

• Where human participants are involved, are informed consent and participant protections appropriately addressed?

• Are issues relating to privacy, confidentiality, and protection of participants adequately considered?

• For studies involving vulnerable populations, are appropriate ethical safeguards described?

Plagiarism

If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, or substantial similarity with previously published work, please inform the editor immediately. Reviewers should not independently contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

Data Integrity and Research Misconduct

If you suspect that data have been fabricated, falsified, manipulated, selectively reported, or otherwise presented in a misleading manner, please bring the concern to the editor's attention and provide specific evidence or observations where possible.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with third parties.

Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal research or professional advantage.

Reviewers should not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

Final Review

Before submitting your review, please ensure that:

• The review has been completed objectively and within the designated deadline.

• Major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript have been clearly identified.

• Comments are constructive, specific, and supported by scientific reasoning.

• Major concerns that affect the validity or reliability of the study are clearly distinguished from minor editorial issues.

• Suggestions for revision are practical and relevant to improving the manuscript.

• Comments intended for the editor are distinguished from comments intended for the authors.

• The recommendation is consistent with the issues identified in the review.

Your careful, objective, and constructive review is essential to maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of Husada and to supporting the advancement of research and practice in health sciences.