Peer-Review Statements

Abstract

These articles have been peer reviewed by the members of the proceeding committee [Izzanil Hidayati, Rizal Kurniawan, and Rahmadianti Aulia] and approved by the Editor-in-Chief, who affirms that this document is a truthful description of the conference's review process. Review ProcedureThe reviews were double-blind. Each submission was examined by two reviewers independently.The review procedure:1. Manuscripts submitted via the web conference will be checked in advance for suitability with the scope/theme of the conference as well as suitability with the template provided, especially for the section on writing references in APA style. 2. The received manuscript will be followed by a review process to two reviewers. Each reviewer is given about two weeks to provide input regarding the paper. Meanwhile, rejected manuscripts are manuscripts that are not in accordance with the writing standards set by the committee. 3. After the reviewer provides feedback on the paper, it will be gave back to the author for corrections based on the feedback provided by the reviewer. The author has two weeks to revise the article. 4. After the author has corrected the article, the reviewer will decide whether or not it is acceptable for publication. 5. Accepted articles will be checked again for writing in its entirety, including layout, typos, and punctuation, along with plagiarism. 6. Articles that have been checked by the editor, will be sent to the publisher. Quality CriteriaReviewers were instructed to assess the quality of submissions solely based on the academic merit of their content along the following dimensions.1. Pertinence of the article's content to the scope and themes of the conference (human behaviour, mind and body health, well being, positive psychology, e-health, modern health, nursing, medical, and public health).