The Journal of Family Medicine, Primary Care and Community Health Indonesia (FPCHI) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. FPCHI is committed to a fair, transparent, and timely review process that upholds the highest standards of academic integrity.
1. Review Model
Double-Blind Review
FPCHI's standard model. Author and reviewer identities are both concealed. Used for all original research articles, reviews, and case reports.
Default
Single-Blind Review
Reviewers know the authors' identities but authors do not know the reviewers'. Applied occasionally for invited commentaries and editorials.
Open Review (Optional)
Both author and reviewer identities are disclosed. Authors may request open review at submission; reviewers may also consent to reveal their identity upon acceptance.
2. Editorial and Review Workflow
Submission Receipt
Authors receive an automated acknowledgement upon submission. The editorial office assigns a manuscript ID within 1–2 business days.
Editorial Pre-screening
The Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor conducts an initial check for scope fit, guideline compliance, and plagiarism screening within 5–7 days. Manuscripts failing this stage are returned without review.
Reviewer Assignment
A minimum of two independent external reviewers are invited. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, absence of conflict of interest, and availability. A third reviewer may be consulted if opinions diverge.
Peer Review
Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to complete their evaluation. Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline are asked to notify the editorial office promptly so that a replacement can be arranged.
Editorial Decision
The editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The decision is communicated to authors with reviewer comments.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors must resubmit revised manuscripts within 4 weeks (minor) or 8 weeks (major), accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing all reviewer comments.
Final Decision and Production
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and typesetting. Authors will receive proofs for final approval before online publication. Articles are published online as soon as they are ready.
3. Target Timelines
7 days
Initial editorial decision (desk review)
6 weeks
First decision after peer review
4–8 weeks
Revision resubmission window
2 weeks
Proof turnaround after acceptance
4. Editorial Decision Categories
Accept
The manuscript is accepted as submitted or with only minor editorial corrections. No further peer review is required.
Minor Revision
Small changes are required. The revised manuscript is typically assessed by the handling editor only, without returning to reviewers.
Major Revision
Substantial revisions are required, potentially including additional data collection or analysis. The revised manuscript is returned to the original reviewers.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for originality, methodological rigor, or scope. Rejection decisions are final and cannot be appealed on scientific grounds.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Constructive Feedback
Reviewers are expected to provide specific, evidence-based, and constructive comments that help authors improve their work, regardless of the final recommendation. Personal criticism is not acceptable.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or cite any part of an unpublished manuscript without the written consent of the authors and editor.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must decline an invitation if they have a competing interest with the authors, institution, or subject matter. This includes recent collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, or personal acquaintances.
Timeliness
Reviewers who cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe must notify the editorial office immediately. Repeated failure to meet deadlines may result in removal from the reviewer database.
Standards of Review
Reviewers should evaluate: originality and significance, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, adequacy of references, and ethical compliance. Recommendations must be justified with specific comments.
Reporting Suspected Misconduct
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or any other ethical violation, they must report this to the editor immediately and should not mention it solely within their review comments.
6. Protecting Integrity in the Review Process
Anonymisation of Manuscripts
Authors must ensure their manuscript is fully anonymised before submission. This includes removing author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and any self-identifying references from the main manuscript file. Author details must only appear on the separate title page.
Prevention of Reviewer Manipulation
FPCHI strictly prohibits any attempt by authors to influence the selection of reviewers, contact reviewers directly, or engage in any form of peer review manipulation. Any such behaviour will result in immediate rejection and may be reported to the authors' institution.
Suggested Reviewers
Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of up to two individuals, with reasons stated. The editorial team is not obliged to follow these suggestions and reserves the right to invite any qualified expert it deems appropriate.
7. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the scientific content, or a clear procedural violation may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@fpchi.org within 30 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must include a point-by-point rebuttal addressing the specific grounds for appeal. Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewers' opinions will not be considered. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final.
Compliance and Standards
FPCHI's peer review process is conducted in accordance with:
