Qanun Medika - Medical Journal Faculty of Medicine Muhammadiyah Surabaya applies a double-blind peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, scientific validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. The process is designed to support fair editorial decisions, improve the quality of scholarly publications, and maintain research integrity. This policy follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Peer Review Processes, which requires journals to describe their review procedures transparently and manage them responsibly.

Qanun Medika uses a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. The editorial team is responsible for removing identifying information from manuscripts and review communications to support an impartial assessment.

The journal's peer review model and its implementation are intended to be transparent to authors, reviewers, and readers. This approach is consistent with the COPE Core Practice on Peer Review Processes and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize the importance of clear review procedures, confidentiality, and responsible conduct by everyone involved.

Every submitted manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal's focus and scope and meets the basic requirements for scholarly consideration. The initial screening may include an assessment of completeness, article structure, originality, ethical considerations, and compliance with the journal's submission guidelines.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or minimum submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review. Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Editorial decisions at this stage should be based on the manuscript's scholarly content and suitability for the journal, rather than irrelevant personal characteristics or affiliations of the authors. This principle is consistent with the COPE Core Practices.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area, research methods, or clinical and scientific issues addressed by the manuscript. Reviewers are selected according to their competence, suitability, availability, and ability to provide an independent assessment.

Qanun Medika aims to obtain assessments from at least two reviewers for each manuscript, in accordance with the journal's stated review procedure. If a reviewer considers the subject outside their expertise or cannot complete the review within a reasonable period, they should inform the editor promptly and decline the invitation so that a suitable replacement can be considered.

Reviewer selection and management follow the principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which advise reviewers to accept assignments only when they have the appropriate expertise, sufficient time, and no conflict of interest that would compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript objectively and provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments. The assessment may consider the following aspects, as relevant to the article type:

a. Originality and novelty: Whether the manuscript provides an original contribution and clearly explains its significance in relation to existing literature.

b. Scientific relevance: Whether the research question and findings are relevant to medicine, health sciences, or the journal's stated scope.

c. Methodological quality: Whether the research design, methods, analysis, and interpretation are appropriate and sufficiently described.

d. Validity of findings: Whether the results support the conclusions and whether limitations are acknowledged appropriately.

e. Ethical compliance: Whether applicable research ethics requirements, informed consent, participant protection, and other relevant safeguards have been addressed.

f. References and scholarly context: Whether the citations are relevant and accurate and whether the manuscript engages appropriately with relevant published research.

g. Clarity and organization: Whether the manuscript presents its methods, results, discussion, and conclusions clearly enough for scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers should provide reasons for their assessments and avoid unsupported judgments or personal criticism. These expectations are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which require objective, constructive, and clearly supported review reports.

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and all information obtained during peer review as confidential. They must not share, distribute, or discuss a manuscript with unauthorized individuals without the editor's permission.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage or for the benefit of others. They must also identify relevant published work that has not been cited and inform the editor if they suspect substantial overlap, plagiarism, data manipulation, or other potential research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment and should decline the review when the conflict could compromise impartiality. These responsibilities follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

After considering the reviewer reports and the manuscript's overall quality, the editor makes the editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final decision rests with the editor or the authorized editorial decision-maker, who must assess the evidence and ensure that the decision is consistent with the journal's standards.

Possible decisions include:

a. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to any required production checks.

b. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision can be made.

c. Major Revision: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript may need further review.

d. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication or has limitations that cannot be adequately addressed through revision.

The editor communicates the decision to the corresponding author and, where appropriate, provides the reviewers' comments to explain the decision and guide revision. Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, research integrity, and the journal's scope. This procedure reflects the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

When revision is requested, authors must respond to the editorial decision and address the reviewers' comments point by point. Authors should explain any recommendation they do not adopt and provide a scientific justification for their response. Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's designated submission system within the deadline communicated by the editor.

The editor may assess the revision directly or return it to the original reviewers, particularly when the requested changes concern methodology, data interpretation, research ethics, or other substantive matters. Further revision may be requested when the concerns have not been adequately addressed. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance.

Review and reassessment should be managed consistently and transparently, in line with the COPE Core Practice on Peer Review Processes.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment of a manuscript. Such interests may include financial relationships, close personal or professional relationships, competing research interests, or institutional connections.

When a conflict could compromise impartiality, the editor will take appropriate steps, which may include appointing another reviewer or assigning the manuscript to an independent editor. Editors must not allow a conflicted individual to determine the outcome of the affected submission.

These procedures follow the COPE Core Practices on Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

If a reviewer or editor suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate submission, unethical research, inappropriate image manipulation, or another potential breach of publication ethics, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor. The editor will assess the information and determine whether further clarification, investigation, or consultation is required.

The journal may request an explanation from the authors, seek advice from relevant experts, or contact the authors' institution when appropriate. Concerns will be handled fairly and on the basis of available evidence, and allegations will not be treated as proven solely because they have been raised.

These procedures are guided by the COPE Core Practices, including its guidance on allegations of misconduct, and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a reasoned written request to the editorial office. The appeal should identify the decision being challenged and explain the specific factual, methodological, or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with a reviewer alone, without a substantive justification, may not be sufficient to warrant a new assessment.

The journal may review the appeal through an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision or seek additional independent expert advice where appropriate. The journal will communicate the outcome to the corresponding author. Appeals will be considered fairly and independently, in accordance with the COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the period communicated in the review invitation. If a reviewer cannot meet the agreed deadline, they should inform the editor promptly so that an extension or replacement can be considered.

The editorial team will make reasonable efforts to monitor progress, communicate delays, and provide authors with updates when necessary. The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions required. The journal will avoid promising a fixed publication timeline unless it can consistently meet that commitment.

Clear communication and responsible management of review timelines are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practice on Peer Review Processes.

Qanun Medika is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and accountable peer review process. The journal will communicate its review model, editorial procedures, and relevant reviewer responsibilities through its official website and will review these procedures when necessary to maintain good publication practice.

The journal's peer review policy is informed by the COPE Core Practices, particularly the requirement that peer review processes be transparently described and well managed, and by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.