Peer Review Process

YUI Health: Journal of Health Science Insight, published by YUIPublishing.id, applies a double-anonymous peer review system to ensure academic quality, fairness, and integrity. Each submitted manuscript undergoes a structured and transparent review workflow as outlined below.

  • At a Glance
  • Review modelDouble-anonymous (double-blind) peer review
  • ReviewersAt least two independent expert reviewers per manuscript
  • Similarity checkTurnitin, maximum similarity index of 20%
  • Final decisionEditorial board
  • Peer Review Workflow
  1. Manuscript submissionAuthors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system in accordance with the prescribed author guidelines and journal template.
  2. Initial editorial screeningThe editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment to evaluate:
    • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope in health sciences, public health, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, nutrition, and healthcare services.
    • Originality and relevance of the topic.
    • Methodological soundness and academic structure.
    • Compliance with the journal template and formatting requirements.
    • Adequacy and recency of references.
    • Similarity index, assessed using Turnitin with a maximum threshold of 20% (see Screening Plagiarism).
    Manuscripts that fail to meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected at this stage.
  3. Assignment to reviewersManuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s field of health science. Under the double-anonymous (double-blind) review, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the process.
  4. Peer review evaluationReviewers critically assess the manuscript based on:
    • Scientific contribution to health sciences, healthcare practice, or public health.
    • Research design and methodology (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, or other approaches accepted by the journal).
    • Clarity of analysis and discussion.
    • Academic writing quality and coherence.
    • Ethical considerations, including ethical approval for studies involving human participants, and citation integrity.
    Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommendations.
  5. Author revisionThe editor forwards the reviewers’ comments to the corresponding author. Authors are required to revise the manuscript and submit a detailed response to each reviewer’s comment within the specified timeframe.
  6. Editorial board decisionThe revised manuscript, along with the reviewers’ recommendations and the author’s responses, is evaluated by the editorial board. A decision is made to accept, request further revision, or reject the manuscript.
  7. Final decision and publicationThe final decision is communicated to the corresponding author by the editor. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and publication.