Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine

Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine implements a rigorous, objective, and transparent manuscript review system to ensure the quality and scientific integrity of the published literature. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a comprehensive evaluation to ensure its alignment with the journal's scope,the quality of its empowerment methodology, and its tangible contribution to improving public health and community welfare.

The entire editorial workflow is based on the principles of confidentiality, academic independence, and strict adherence to publication ethics, free from any conflicts of interest.

1. Review Mechanism (Double-Blind Peer Review)
   The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review evaluation standard. In this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are mutually concealed throughout the evaluation process. This step is taken to ensure that manuscripts are judged purely on their academic substance, program innovation, and community service impact, without any personal or institutional bias.
   
   
2. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
   Before manuscripts are distributed to reviewers, the editorial team conducts an initial administrative and substantive screening. The evaluation at this stage includes:

• Alignment of the theme with the focus and scope of Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Humanity and Medicine.
• Compliance with standard formatting and the journal's in-house style (completeness of the abstract,introduction, methods, and references).
• Relevance of the community service program to outcomes that directly benefit the target community.
• Similarity checks to detect any indications of plagiarism.
• The availability of required ethical disclosures (e.g., participant consent) and conflict of interest statements.

Manuscripts deemed not to meet the basic eligibility criteria or that fall outside the journal's focus will be immediately rejected (Desk Reject) or returned to the authors for revision before entering the peer review stage.

3. Reviewer Assignment
   Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. The editorial board assigns reviewers based on their track record, expertise, and the relevance of their scientific field (e.g.,public health, tropical medicine, social empowerment) to the manuscript's topic. Reviewers are required to decline the assignment if they feel unqualified to assess the topic or if they have a conflict of interest with the manuscript being evaluated.
4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
   The evaluation conducted by reviewers focuses on the following elements:

• Urgency and Problem Statement: The sharpness of the situational analysis and the clarity of problem identification within the target partner group.
• Intervention Methods: The appropriateness of the empowerment approach, program design, and the level of active community participation.
• Impact and Sustainability: Empirical evidence of the program's success, analysis of changes in the partner's condition, and opportunities for program sustainability post-activity.
• Data Presentation and Analysis: The quality of the discussion, the clarity of scientific argumentation,and the connection between the results and current theories/literature.
• Language Quality and Visualization: Writing structure, readability, and the effective use of supporting tables and graphs.

5. Review Recommendations
   After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers will provide constructive feedback accompanied by one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication without requiring additional revisions.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small-scale improvements, such as language editing, table formatting fixes, or the addition of supporting citations.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements in the methods, data analysis, or discussion structure before it can be reconsidered.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript has fatal methodological flaws, lacks a measurable community service impact, or violates publication ethics codes.

6. Author Revision Mechanism
   Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's decision, authors requested to make revisions must:

1. Carefully revise the manuscript according to the provided notes.
2. Prepare a rebuttal letter detailing the specific points of improvement that have been addressed.
3. Re-upload the revised manuscript through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform by the specified deadline.

Failure to submit revisions on time without prior confirmation may result in the cancellation of the manuscript's publication process.

7. Final Editorial Decision
   The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is the prerogative of the Editor in Chief, based on the accumulation of reviewer recommendations and the author's compliance in making revisions. This acceptance status does not waive the authors' absolute responsibility for the accuracy of the content, data validity, and originality of the work.
   
   
8. Confidentiality and Evaluation Ethics
   All manuscripts undergoing the review process are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, citing, or misusing data from unpublished manuscripts for any purpose.Comments provided by reviewers must be objective, educational, and completely free from discriminatory content or personal attacks.
   
   
9. Time Management and Appeals
   The editorial team is committed to maintaining efficiency in manuscript processing times to ensure the rapid and high-quality dissemination of knowledge. Authors can monitor the real-time progress of their manuscripts via the OJS dashboard.

If an author believes a manuscript rejection decision is scientifically unfounded, they have the right to submit a formal and professional appeal (rebuttal/appeal) to the editorial board, including relevant scientific arguments and supporting evidence. The appeal will be re-evaluated independently by the editorial team.