Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI)

Editorial Decision Policy

Transparent decisions • Independent editorial judgment • Fair and constructive assessment

Policy at a glance: MKI uses the four editorial decisions available in Open Journal Systems (OJS) 2: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, and Decline Submission. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the editor's decision.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy defines the principles, decision categories, responsibilities, and procedures used by Media Keperawatan Indonesia (MKI) in assessing manuscripts submitted for publication. Its purpose is to ensure that editorial decisions are scientifically justified, ethically sound, clearly communicated, and consistently implemented.

The policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to MKI, including original research articles and review articles. Editorial decisions are guided by the journal's aims and scope, the quality and integrity of the research, the relevance and originality of the contribution, reviewer reports, and authors' responses to editorial and reviewer comments.

2. Editorial Authority and Independence

The handling editor or Section Editor evaluates the manuscript and reviewers' recommendations and proposes or records the appropriate editorial action in OJS 2, within the responsibilities assigned by the journal. The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for the final editorial decision and for ensuring that decisions are consistent with the journal's policies and publication standards.

Reviewers provide independent expert assessments and recommendations. They do not make the final editorial decision. The editor may reach a decision that differs from an individual reviewer's recommendation when there is a documented scientific, methodological, or ethical justification. Where reviewer opinions conflict materially, the editor may seek an additional independent review or further clarification.

Editorial decisions must be free from inappropriate influence by authors, reviewers, institutions, sponsors, advertisers, the publisher, or financial considerations. An author's nationality, institutional affiliation, seniority, personal relationships, or ability to pay an article processing charge must not determine the outcome of a scientific evaluation.

3. Editorial Assessment Before Peer Review

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment. The editor or editorial office may examine:

• Fit with the journal's aims, scope, article types, and readership.
• Originality, scientific novelty, and a clearly articulated contribution to nursing knowledge or practice.
• Appropriateness of the study design, sampling, measurement, analysis, and interpretation.
• Completeness, clarity, and compliance with Author Guidelines and applicable reporting standards.
• Research ethics, informed consent when applicable, authorship disclosures, competing interests, and publication integrity.
• Results of similarity screening considered in context, rather than solely by a numeric score.
• Correct preparation of anonymized files for the double-blind review procedure.

Manuscripts with correctable administrative or presentation problems may be returned for correction before review. Manuscripts that are outside scope or have substantial deficiencies may be declined without external review. Such an initial rejection is an editorial screening outcome, not a separate fifth decision category in OJS 2; the appropriate decision is recorded and communicated through the journal's editorial workflow.

4. External Peer Review and Decision Considerations

Manuscripts meeting initial requirements ordinarily proceed to assessment by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject and methodological expertise. MKI introduced double-blind peer review in 2026, replacing the single-blind system used before that year. The policy change applies prospectively; earlier manuscripts were reviewed under the procedures applicable at the time.

Editors consider the substance of reviewers' reports rather than merely counting recommendations. Evaluation includes the manuscript's scientific contribution, methodological rigor, internal consistency, ethical compliance, transparency of reporting, scholarly relevance, engagement with pertinent research, clarity of presentation, and responses to previous review comments. Research undertaken in a local setting is assessed on scientific quality and the broader relevance of its findings, not excluded solely because of its location.

5. Editorial Decision Categories in OJS 2

For clarity and consistency, MKI uses the following four OJS 2 editor decision categories. Terms such as minor revision and major revision may be used descriptively in correspondence, but they are not additional decision categories in this policy.

6. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions Are Different

OJS 2 provides reviewers with six recommendation options: Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, and See Comments. These are recommendations, not binding editorial decisions.

In particular, Resubmit Elsewhere and See Comments are reviewer recommendations and do not constitute additional editor decisions. Reviewers may recommend different outcomes; the editor must evaluate the reasons, manuscript evidence, and any ethical concerns and then record one of the four editor decisions identified above.

7. Revision Requirements and Subsequent Assessment

When revision is requested, the decision letter should explain the substantive issues to be addressed and whether a new peer review round is expected. Authors must respond within the deadline stated in the editorial correspondence or seek an extension before the deadline when additional time is required.

Authors should provide:

1. A revised manuscript prepared according to the applicable anonymization requirements.
2. A point-by-point response addressing each editor and reviewer comment, indicating the location of relevant changes.
3. Revised files with changes identified, and a clean copy when required by the journal's submission instructions.
4. A clear, evidence-based explanation when a requested change has not been adopted.

Following Revisions Required, the editor evaluates whether the issues have been resolved and may seek additional specialist advice if necessary. Following Resubmit for Review, the revised manuscript undergoes a new review round before a further decision is recorded. Additional revisions may be requested when justified. Manuscripts may be declined if essential deficiencies remain unresolved.

When authors do not respond by the stated deadline, the editorial office may contact them and may close the submission in accordance with its documented procedures. A decision to close or decline must be communicated clearly and recorded in the journal's editorial system.

8. Decision Letters and Transparency to Authors

The editor communicates each substantive editorial decision through the OJS editorial correspondence system. Decision letters should state:

• The exact editorial decision recorded in OJS 2.
• The principal reasons for the decision, including important scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related concerns.
• Relevant reviewer comments or a balanced summary, excluding confidential editor-only comments and identifying details.
• The required actions, revised-file requirements, and any deadline or review-round expectations.
• Whether a revision is being invited without implying a guarantee of acceptance.

Reviewers' confidential comments intended solely for editors must not be inadvertently disclosed to authors. The journal maintains an auditable record of decisions, reviewer recommendations, and relevant correspondence in OJS.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Special Editorial Cases

Editors and reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect impartiality. Editors must not handle or decide submissions when they have an unmanageable conflict of interest with an author, institution, funding source, or study. Such manuscripts must be reassigned to an appropriate independent editor.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or persons closely associated with the journal must undergo the same scientific and ethical standards as other submissions and be managed by an independent editor without relevant conflicts. Editors must also investigate credible concerns regarding research integrity using appropriate journal procedures and recognized publication ethics guidance.

10. Appeals, Complaints, and Reconsideration

Authors who believe that a decision involves a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or a potentially unmanaged conflict of interest may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office through the journal's official contact channel. An appeal should identify the manuscript and decision and provide concise supporting evidence. Disagreement with a scientific assessment alone does not automatically justify reversal.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or, where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, another independent editor designated for that purpose. The journal may request further expert evaluation when necessary. The outcome of the appeal and its reasons will be communicated to the author. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration for publication or reversal of the original decision.

11. Editorial Quality Assurance and Records

MKI seeks consistency and accountability by maintaining records of editorial screening, reviewers' recommendations, editorial decisions, revision requests, response documents, subsequent review rounds, and any appeal outcomes. The editorial team periodically evaluates decision quality, reviewer independence, timeliness, and conformity with the journal's published policies.

Reviews and editorial decisions are assessed using the policy applicable to the manuscript at the time. In particular, MKI's adoption of double-blind peer review in 2026 does not retrospectively imply that submissions reviewed under the earlier single-blind system followed the newer procedure.

12. Related Journal Policies

This Editorial Decision Policy should be read together with MKI's Peer Review Process and Policy, Author Guidelines, Editorial Policies and Reviewer Guidelines, and other relevant publication ethics policies.