Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Mental Health and Social Rehabilitation (JMHSR) must follow focus and scope, and author guidelines of this journal. The submitted manuscripts must address scientific merit or novelty appropriate to the focus and scope. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection softaware to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal. The manuscripts will be reviewed using the double blind peer review method in which case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

The research article submitted to Journal of Mental Health and Social Rehabilitation (JMHSR) will be peer-reviewed at least 2 (two) or more expert reviewers. The reviewers give scientific valuable comments improving the contents of the manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Mental Health and Social Rehabilitation (JMHSR) will undergo a selection and assessment process by the Assistant Editor to ensure their accordance with the writing guideline, focus, and scope, and that they are of excellent academic quality.  The manuscripts will be reviewed using the double blind peer review method in which case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Desk Review. At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guideline, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.

Peer review. When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 3 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceed to this stage.

Reviewer’s decision. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:

1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns
3. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised
4. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues

The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Editor in Chief to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.  

Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Assistant Editor to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.

Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Assistant Editor, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.

Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor in Chief will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.