Editorial Process

Editorial Process

Manuscript Handling, Peer Review, Editorial Decision, and Publication Workflow of NADI: Journal of Health Sciences

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences applies a structured, transparent, and accountable editorial process to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated according to their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and contribution to health sciences.

Manuscripts are managed through the journal's online editorial system and undergo administrative screening, editorial assessment, similarity checking, double-blind peer review, author revision, editorial decision, copyediting, production, proofreading, metadata verification, and publication as applicable.

Editorial Workflow

Submission → Administrative Screening → Similarity Check → Editorial Assessment → Peer Review → Revision → Final Decision → Production → Publication

Step Editorial Stage Process
1 Online Submission Authors submit the manuscript and complete the required article and author metadata through the journal's online submission system.
2 Administrative Screening The editorial team checks manuscript completeness, author information, affiliations, metadata, declarations, formatting, and compliance with the Author Guidelines.
3 Similarity Screening The manuscript is screened for textual similarity and potential plagiarism according to the journal's Plagiarism Policy, with a maximum overall similarity threshold of 20%.
4 Initial Editorial Assessment The responsible Editor evaluates scope relevance, originality, scientific quality, methodology, research ethics, reporting quality, and suitability for external peer review.
5 Reviewer Assignment Manuscripts suitable for review are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.
6 Double-Blind Peer Review At least two independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide substantive scientific comments and recommendations.
7 Editorial Evaluation The Editor evaluates the reviewer reports and determines the appropriate editorial action.
8 Author Revision Authors revise the manuscript and respond systematically to comments from reviewers and editors.
9 Re-Evaluation Revised manuscripts are assessed by the Editor and may be returned to reviewers when further scientific evaluation is necessary.
10 Final Decision The responsible Editor makes the final decision to accept or decline the manuscript based on the complete scientific and editorial assessment.
11 Copyediting & Production Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, reference checking, layout preparation, metadata verification, and other publication preparation.
12 Author Proofreading The corresponding author may be asked to review the final proof for typographical, formatting, or production-related errors before publication.
13 Publication The final article is published in the appropriate issue with complete bibliographic metadata, DOI, publication history, and open-access licensing information.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts through the official online submission system of NADI: Journal of Health Sciences. Submission by informal communication does not replace the official OJS submission record.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that manuscript files and all required metadata are complete, accurate, and consistent before submission.

2. Administrative Screening

Before scientific evaluation, the editorial office conducts an administrative screening. Manuscripts that do not meet submission requirements may be returned to authors for correction before further evaluation.

Administrative screening may include:

  • Completeness of author and article metadata.
  • Compliance with the manuscript template.
  • Appropriate manuscript structure.
  • Completeness of abstract and keywords.
  • Author names, emails, and affiliations.
  • References and citation format.
  • Ethical approval information where applicable.
  • Author Contributions statement.
  • Funding Statement.
  • Conflict of Interest statement.
  • Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence.

3. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Manuscripts are screened for textual similarity as part of the editorial process. NADI: Journal of Health Sciences applies a maximum overall similarity threshold of 20%.

A similarity score of 20% or lower does not automatically mean that a manuscript is free from plagiarism. Editors assess the source, context, extent, and pattern of matching material. Serious plagiarism may result in rejection regardless of the overall numerical similarity score.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor conducts an initial scientific assessment before a manuscript is sent for external peer review. This stage determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently suitable for further scholarly evaluation.

Assessment Area Editorial Consideration
Aims & Scope Relevance to the disciplinary scope of NADI.
Originality Novelty, research gap, and contribution to health sciences.
Methodology Scientific appropriateness and methodological transparency.
Research Ethics Ethical approval, informed consent, privacy, and participant protection where applicable.
Scientific Presentation Clarity, organization, evidence, interpretation, and quality of academic reporting.

5. Editorial Rejection Before Peer Review

A manuscript may be declined before external peer review when it clearly does not satisfy the journal's fundamental scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial requirements.

  • The manuscript is outside the journal's aims and scope.
  • The manuscript lacks sufficient originality or contribution.
  • The research design or methodology contains fundamental weaknesses.
  • Required ethical approval is absent where applicable.
  • Serious plagiarism or duplicate publication is identified.
  • The manuscript is substantially incomplete.
  • The manuscript does not meet minimum scholarly reporting standards.

6. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject, methodology, population, clinical field, public-health issue, or health-system context of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers scientific expertise, scholarly activity, independence, absence of relevant conflicts of interest, and ability to provide substantive and constructive assessment.

7. Double-Blind Peer Review

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences applies a double-blind peer review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers during external review.

Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. An additional reviewer may be invited when assessments differ substantially or additional scientific expertise is required.

8. Scope of Peer Review

Peer reviewers are expected to provide substantive scientific assessment rather than limiting their comments to grammar, formatting, or presentation.

Reviewers may evaluate:
  • Scientific relevance and originality.
  • Research gap and novelty.
  • Study design and methodology.
  • Sampling and measurement procedures.
  • Statistical or qualitative analysis.
  • Validity and clarity of results.
  • Depth of discussion and interpretation.
  • Quality and relevance of references.
  • Ethical considerations.
  • Scientific contribution and implications.

9. Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations provide scientific advice to the Editor but do not constitute the final publication decision. The responsible Editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer comments, research ethics, author responses, and journal standards before determining the appropriate action.

Decision Description
Accept Submission The manuscript satisfies the journal's publication requirements.
Minor Revision Limited scientific or editorial revision is required.
Major Revision Substantial scientific or methodological revision is required.
Decline Submission The manuscript does not meet the scientific, ethical, methodological, or editorial standards required for publication.

10. Author Revision

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a systematic response to reviewer and editor comments.

  • Address each reviewer comment carefully.
  • Identify relevant changes made in the revised manuscript.
  • Provide scientific justification when a recommendation is not adopted.
  • Maintain respectful and professional communication.
  • Ensure that revisions do not introduce new inconsistencies or unsupported claims.

11. Re-Evaluation and Additional Review

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for additional assessment. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the Editor when the required changes do not involve significant scientific or methodological issues.

More than one revision round may be required when substantial concerns remain unresolved.

12. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the responsible Editor after considering all relevant scientific assessments, reviewer reports, author revisions, ethical considerations, and journal requirements.

Positive reviewer recommendations do not automatically guarantee acceptance. Editorial responsibility for the final publication decision remains with the journal.

13. Acceptance and Letter of Acceptance

A manuscript is considered formally accepted only after the responsible Editor has issued a final acceptance decision through the journal's editorial workflow.

A Letter of Acceptance (LoA) may only be issued after the manuscript has legitimately completed the required editorial and peer-review process and has received formal acceptance. Submission alone does not guarantee publication.

14. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to production. Scientific conclusions are not altered during production without appropriate editorial and author consideration.

Copyediting Language, consistency, presentation, and editorial style.
References Citation and bibliographic consistency checking.
Layout Preparation of the publication-ready article format.
Metadata Verification of titles, authors, affiliations, abstracts, keywords, and publication information.
DOI Assignment or verification of the article Digital Object Identifier.

15. Proofreading

The corresponding author may receive the final proof for verification before publication. Proofreading is intended primarily to identify typographical, formatting, metadata, or production-related errors.

Major changes to the study design, data, analysis, authorship, or conclusions after acceptance require editorial consideration and may require additional review.

16. Final Publication Information

Before publication, the journal verifies essential article and publication information.

  • Journal title.
  • Volume and issue.
  • Publication year.
  • Article title.
  • Author names and affiliations.
  • Corresponding author information.
  • Abstract and keywords.
  • DOI.
  • Received date.
  • Revised date.
  • Accepted date.
  • Published date.
  • Author Contributions.
  • Funding Statement.
  • Conflict of Interest statement.
  • Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence.
  • Copyright and CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing information.

17. Publication

Accepted and production-ready manuscripts are assigned to an appropriate regular issue of NADI: Journal of Health Sciences.

The journal is published twice a year in May and November. Issue assignment depends on editorial completion, article readiness, and the journal's publication schedule.

18. Open Access and Licensing

Published articles are immediately available through the journal's open-access platform and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).

19. Editorial Independence and Publication Charges

Financial considerations do not influence editorial screening, reviewer selection, peer-review recommendations, revision decisions, acceptance, rejection, or publication scheduling.

Submission, peer review, Article Processing Charge, publication, and reader access: IDR 0 / USD 0.00 — FREE.

20. Editorial Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and must not participate in manuscript evaluation when their independence or impartiality may reasonably be compromised.

When an Editor has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for the manuscript should be transferred to another qualified Editor.

21. Confidentiality

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, figures, tables, and other materials obtained during manuscript evaluation are treated as confidential information.

Unpublished material must not be used for personal, academic, financial, professional, or commercial advantage without appropriate authorization.

22. Artificial Intelligence in Editorial Handling

Confidentiality and Human Editorial Responsibility

Artificial Intelligence must not replace the independent scientific judgment of editors or reviewers. Editorial responsibility and publication decisions remain with qualified human editors.

Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished manuscripts and confidential editorial information and must not upload such materials to external generative AI systems in a manner that may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, patient privacy, participant privacy, or publication integrity.

23. Editorial Documentation and Records

The journal maintains appropriate records of manuscript handling through its editorial management system. These records support editorial accountability and provide evidence of the journal's manuscript evaluation process.

  • Submission records.
  • Editorial assignments.
  • Reviewer invitations and assignments.
  • Reviewer reports.
  • Editorial decisions.
  • Author revisions.
  • Responses to reviewer comments.
  • Acceptance decisions.
  • Relevant editorial correspondence.

24. Post-Publication Editorial Responsibility

Editorial responsibility continues after publication. Credible concerns regarding errors, plagiarism, data integrity, authorship, conflicts of interest, ethical approval, or other publication-integrity matters may be investigated after an article has been published.

Depending on the findings, the journal may issue a correction, Erratum, Corrigendum, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate post-publication notice.

Editorial Process Summary

Submission → Screening → Double-Blind Peer Review → Revision → Decision → Production → Publication
Submission System Online Journal Management System
Initial Screening Administrative and scientific editorial assessment
Maximum Similarity 20%
Peer Review Model Double-Blind Peer Review
Peer Reviewers At least two independent reviewers
Final Decision Responsible Editor
Publication Frequency May and November
Publication Charge IDR 0 / USD 0.00 — FREE
License CC BY-SA 4.0

NADI: Journal of Health Sciences is committed to maintaining a rigorous, independent, transparent, confidential, and evidence-based editorial process. Every manuscript is handled according to its scientific and ethical merits, and acceptance is determined through legitimate editorial evaluation and peer review rather than financial, institutional, personal, or commercial influence.

Editorial Ethics Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

https://publicationethics.org/