Peer Review Process

Majalah Kedokteran Andalas (MKA) is committed to maintaining the highest academic and ethical standards in its publication process. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure impartiality, objectivity, and academic integrity in evaluating all submitted manuscripts. Below is a detailed outline of the journal's peer-review process:

1. Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system, accessible via the journal's website.

  • Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial pre-screening by the editorial team to ensure it aligns with the journal's focus and scope, and that it meets the journal's formatting and content guidelines.

2. Initial Editorial Review

  • The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  • If the manuscript meets the journal’s standards, it is assigned to a handling editor based on the subject matter of the article.

  • The handling editor may also assess whether the manuscript follows ethical guidelines, including proper citation, authorship, and conflict of interest disclosure.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Selection of Reviewers: Once the manuscript passes the initial review, the handling editor selects appropriate external peer reviewers—experts in the manuscript’s subject area—who are not involved in the journal’s editorial team.

    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, institutional affiliation, and absence of any conflicts of interest related to the article or authors.

    • The journal typically uses at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript.

  • Double-Blind Review: Both the authors' and reviewers' identities are kept anonymous throughout the process.

    • Reviewers are provided with the manuscript and asked to evaluate it on various criteria, including the novelty of the research, the clarity and accuracy of the methods, the strength of the data analysis, the significance of the results, and the overall quality of writing.

    • Reviewers also assess the manuscript’s adherence to ethical standards and provide feedback on how to improve the quality and validity of the work.

  • Review Timeline: The peer review is generally completed within 4-6 weeks of submission, but timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers. If delays occur, the handling editor communicates the expected timeline to the authors.

4. Reviewers' Feedback and Decision

  • Feedback: Reviewers submit their comments and recommendations to the handling editor. Their feedback includes one of the following recommendations:

    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minor revisions.

    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight revisions (e.g., language edits, minor methodological clarifications).

    • Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are needed, such as additional experiments, data analysis, or reorganization of content.

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in MKA due to significant issues in methodology, analysis, or relevance to the journal's scope.

  • Handling Editor’s Role: The handling editor synthesizes the reviewers' feedback and makes a final decision on whether to:

    • Accept the manuscript as is

    • Accept the manuscript with revisions

    • Reject the manuscript

    • If major revisions are required, the handling editor provides clear, constructive feedback for the author to address the reviewers’ concerns.

5. Author Revisions

  • If the manuscript is asked for revisions, the authors are given a set period (typically 2-4 weeks) to revise the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments.

  • Authors are required to submit a detailed response letter explaining how they have addressed each point raised by the reviewers.

  • Authors can also choose to submit a revised version of the manuscript, taking into account the reviewers' feedback and suggestions.

  • If further revisions are required after the initial revision, the manuscript may go through additional rounds of peer review.

6. Final Decision

  • Once the authors resubmit the revised manuscript, the handling editor reviews the revised submission and may consult with the reviewers again if necessary.

  • Based on the revised manuscript and the response letter, the handling editor makes the final publication decision, which may include:

    • Acceptance: If the manuscript is found to meet the journal's standards after revisions, it is accepted for publication.

    • Rejection: If the manuscript does not meet the required standards or does not adequately address the reviewers’ concerns, it may be rejected.

7. Post-Publication

  • After acceptance, the manuscript is sent for final formatting and typesetting before it is scheduled for publication in the next available issue of the journal.

  • The accepted article is assigned a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and is made available online as part of the open-access platform.

  • Authors are notified when their article is officially published, and any post-publication corrections or updates are made in accordance with the journal's policies.

8. Ethical Oversight

Majalah Kedokteran Andalas (MKA) adheres to the principles set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and follows its guidelines for handling any ethical issues that arise during the peer-review process. This includes dealing with:

  • Plagiarism: The journal uses plagiarism detection tools to ensure the originality of submitted manuscripts.

  • Conflicts of Interest: Both authors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The handling editor ensures that these are properly addressed to maintain the integrity of the review process.

  • Research Misconduct: If any instances of research misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, falsification) are detected, the journal follows COPE’s recommendations for investigating and addressing the misconduct.