Smart: Journal of Healthcare (SHealth) is committed to ensuring the integrity, validity, and high scientific quality of all published articles. To achieve this, SHealth employs a rigorous, objective, and transparent Double-Blind Peer Review process for all submitted research manuscripts.

By concealing the identities of both the authors and the reviewers throughout the evaluation process, SHealth ensures that all manuscripts are judged impartially and exclusively on their scientific merit, methodological rigor, and clinical or public health significance.

The comprehensive peer-review workflow consists of the following stages:

1. Initial Desk Review (Editorial Triage)

Upon submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) portal, the manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Managing Editor. This stage ensures the submission complies with the journal’s fundamental requirements before being sent to external reviewers.

• Aims and Scope Check: The manuscript is evaluated to determine if it aligns with the core focus of SHealth (clinical medicine, public health, healthcare systems, etc.).

• Plagiarism and Similarity Check: All submissions are processed through similarity-checking software (e.g., Turnitin or iThenticate). Manuscripts exceeding the acceptable similarity threshold (typically 20%, excluding quotes and bibliography) will be immediately rejected.

• Ethical Compliance: The editorial team verifies the presence of required ethical declarations, including Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, informed consent statements, and conflict of interest disclosures.

• Formatting Check: The manuscript must adhere to the fundamental structural requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Outcome: Manuscripts that fail this initial triage will receive a "Desk Reject" decision. Those that pass proceed to the formal peer-review stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that clear the desk review are assigned to a Section Editor, who then selects a minimum of two independent, external experts in the specific sub-field of the manuscript.

• Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, recent publication record, and specialized clinical or research knowledge.

• Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation to review.

3. The Double-Blind Evaluation Process

Reviewers are tasked with critically evaluating the manuscript and providing constructive, objective feedback. Reviewers assess the submission based on the following criteria:

• Originality and Innovation: Does the research contribute novel findings or perspectives to the existing body of medical or healthcare knowledge?

• Methodological Rigor: Is the study design robust? Are the data collection methods, statistical analyses, and clinical protocols appropriate and scientifically sound?

• Ethical Standards: Was the research conducted ethically, with appropriate safeguards for human or animal subjects?

• Interpretation and Conclusions: Are the conclusions fully supported by the data presented?

• Relevance: Does the research offer translational value for healthcare delivery in Indonesia, the Global South, or the broader international medical community?

• Clarity and Quality of Presentation: Is the manuscript logically structured and written in clear, concise academic English?

4. Editorial Decision

Once the reviewer reports are submitted, the Section Editor evaluates the feedback and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final, binding decision. The possible decisions are:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form (rare for initial submissions).

• Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires small adjustments, clarifications, or formatting corrections based on reviewer feedback.

• Resubmit for Review (Major): The manuscript has potential but requires substantial restructuring, additional data analysis, or methodological clarification. Upon resubmission, it will undergo a second round of peer review.

• Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to fundamental methodological flaws, lack of originality, failure to fit the journal’s scope, or ethical violations.

5. Revision and Final Acceptance

If revisions are requested, authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document, outlining how each comment was addressed. The editorial board (and sometimes the original reviewers) will evaluate the revisions before granting final acceptance.

Once formally accepted, the manuscript moves into the copyediting, typesetting, and "Online First" publication phase.