Reviewer Guide

1. Purpose & Scope

The goal of peer review is to evaluate a manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to safety and health of medical workers. Assess whether the submission advances evidence, practice, policy, and workforce well-being in healthcare settings.

2. Confidentiality & Ethical Standards

• Confidentiality: Treat all files/data as confidential. Do not quote, share, or upload to any external/AI services.
• Conflicts of interest: Financial, personal, academic, institutional, or collaborative ties must be disclosed to the editor immediately. Recuse if needed.
• Impartiality: Base your review on evidence and methods — not author identity, affiliation, country, or gender.
• Ethics & data: Verify IRB/ethics approval, consent, trial registration (if applicable), data privacy, and safety compliance.
• Generative-AI policy: AI tools must not read manuscripts or draft reviews. Limited offline grammar checking is allowed; disclose any use to the editor.
• COPE-aligned: Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, data fabrication) should be flagged. The journal follows COPE flowcharts.

3. How to Review in OJS (Step-by-Step)

1. Respond: From the OJS invitation, click Accept or Decline (ideally within 3 days).
2. Access files: Open the assigned submission; download manuscript & supplementary files.
3. Read & prepare: Review this guide and any checklists attached to the review form.
4. Evaluate: Assess using the criteria below; note major and minor issues.
5. Write comments: Fill structured comments in the review form; you may also upload a marked PDF/Word (blinded).
6. Recommendation: Choose a decision (Accept / Minor Rev / Major Rev / Reject) and submit.
7. Re-review (if requested): Focus on whether prior concerns are fully addressed.

4. What to Assess (Criteria)

• Originality & significance — contribution to the safety/health of medical workers; practical/policy impact.
• Fit to scope — alignment with SHMW scope (occupational hazards, infection control, ergonomics, mental health, PPE, etc.).
• Literature & rationale — clear research gap, recent references, relevant theory/background.
• Methods & ethics — design appropriateness; sampling; instruments; validity; IRB/consent; trial registration; risk management.
• Analysis — correct statistics/qualitative analyses; effect sizes & CIs; assumptions; sensitivity analyses; transparency/reproducibility.
• Results — clarity, coherence with methods; effective tables/figures; no duplication.
• Discussion — interpretation, limitations, generalizability, practice/policy implications, future directions.
• Transparency — data/code availability statements; funding & conflicts clearly stated; reporting guidelines followed (CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE, etc.).
• Writing quality — organization, clarity, adherence to journal style (APA/Vancouver as applicable), correct captions and citations.

5. Rating Rubric (1 = Poor … 5 = Excellent)

6. Constructive Feedback — Template & Examples

• Brief summary (2–4 lines): What the paper studies and its main contribution.
• Major issues: design flaws, inadequate analysis, unsupported claims, unclear methods, missing ethics/IRB.
• Minor issues: organization, language clarity, figure/table labels, reference format.
• Confidential to editor: For sensitive concerns (suspected misconduct, overlap, identities).

7. Decision Categories (Meaning)

• Accept: Only minor editorial/formatting tweaks remain.
• Minor Revision: Limited, specific changes; no major re-analysis.
• Major Revision: Substantial methodological/analytical/structural changes; may require re-review.
• Reject: Fundamental flaws, out of scope, insufficient contribution, or serious ethical concerns.

8. Timelines & Extensions

Please submit reviews by the invitation due date (commonly 2–4 weeks). If additional time is needed, request an extension as early as possible to help us manage the editorial schedule.

9. Pre-Submission Checklist (Before You Click “Submit”)

• Scores/rubric are consistent with narrative comments.
• Major vs minor issues clearly separated, each with actionable suggestions.
• “Confidential to editor” field used for sensitive concerns, if any.
• Any annotated file is blinded; key points summarized in the text boxes.
• No identifying information disclosed in blinded fields.

10. Reviewer Recognition

• Certificates of Reviewing available upon request.
• Annual acknowledgement of active reviewers on the journal website (opt-in).
• You may list verified reviews on your professional profiles (e.g., ORCID/WoS Reviewer Recognition/Publons) while preserving double-blind integrity.

11. Useful Resources & Reporting Guidelines

• CONSORT (trials), PRISMA (systematic reviews), STROBE (observational), CARE (case reports), COREQ/SRQR (qualitative), SQUIRE (QI/implementation).
• Ethics & integrity: COPE Core Practices and flowcharts.
• Transparency: effect sizes, CIs, and data/code availability statements when feasible.

12. Contact

Questions or technical issues during review? Please contact the editorial office:
admin1@analysisdata.co.id  |  shmw@analysisdata.co.id