Reviewers

SHMW welcomes experienced scholars and practitioners to join our reviewer pool (occupational health, nursing, medicine, ergonomics, health policy). Please send a short CV and profile links (Scopus/Sinta/Scholar/ORCID/WoS) to: admin@analysisdata.co.id and shmw@analysisdata.co.id.

Peer-review model. SHMW uses a double-blind process in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Identities must not appear anywhere in the manuscript or the review file.

What to evaluate. Judge the submission’s fit to the journal scope, originality, clarity of research questions, appropriateness and rigor of methods, statistical soundness, validity of interpretations, and practical impact on healthcare worker safety and health. Verify ethics and compliance: IRB/ethics approval, informed consent, trial registration when applicable, data privacy, and safety regulations.

Confidentiality & conflicts. Manuscripts are confidential and may not be shared, uploaded to public tools/services, or used prior to publication. Declare any actual or perceived competing interests (financial, collaborative, institutional, personal) and decline the invitation if conflicts exist.

Timelines. Please accept or decline within 3–5 days. A typical review window is 2–3 weeks after acceptance; if more time is needed, propose a new date to the editor.

How to write the report. Start with a concise summary of the study and its contribution. Follow with major comments (methods, analysis, ethics, results, conclusions) and then minor comments (clarity, style, references, formatting). When possible, cite page/line/section numbers. End with a clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, with justification and actionable suggestions.

Use of AI tools. Generative-AI systems must not read confidential manuscripts or draft review content. Limited offline grammar/spell checking is acceptable, but any use must be disclosed to the editor and reviewers remain fully responsible.

Research integrity & recognition. Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, duplication, image/data manipulation, fabrication) should be reported to the editor; actions follow COPE flowcharts and journal policies. Reviewers may request recognition via ORCID or WoS Reviewer Recognition (Publons) after the editorial decision—without compromising double-blind anonymity.