Review Process and Policy

Review Process and Policy

Review Model

Jurnal Anestesi dan Terapi Intensif (JATI) implements a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This policy ensures objectivity, fairness, and independence in the assessment of manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, and publication track record relevant to the submitted manuscript. The Editorial Board maintains a database of qualified reviewers and may invite external experts when necessary. All reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment.

Review Process

  1. Initial Check: After submission, manuscripts undergo an editorial screening for plagiarism, scope, formatting, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements are returned to authors or declined.

  2. Assignment: Manuscripts passing the initial check are assigned to a Section Editor, who selects at least two independent reviewers.

  3. Peer Review: Reviewers provide structured evaluations, including recommendations and constructive comments, within 14 days.

  4. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor issues one of the following decisions:

    • Accept

    • Minor Revisions

    • Major Revisions

    • Reject

  5. Revisions: Authors must submit revised manuscripts and a detailed response to reviewers within the specified deadline. Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review if necessary.

  6. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.

  • Identify any ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data manipulation.

  • Decline reviews if conflicts of interest exist or if expertise is insufficient.

Author Responsibilities

  • Respond to reviewer comments point by point and revise the manuscript accordingly.

  • Ensure that revisions are highlighted or tracked to facilitate evaluation.

  • Adhere to the timelines given for revisions (7 days for minor, 14–21 days for major).

Editorial Responsibilities

  • Ensure fair and unbiased review, free from discrimination.

  • Mediate between reviewers and authors when necessary.

  • Act in accordance with COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editorial Board, and where appropriate, an independent reviewer may be consulted. Complaints regarding the review process will be handled transparently and in line with COPE recommendations.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential documents. Information will not be shared outside the editorial process without explicit permission from the author(s).