1. Submission and technical check
Initial manuscripts and supporting files are submitted by email to eureka.herba.indonesia@gmail.com, following the Author Guidelines. The editorial office checks completeness, scope, file integrity, declarations, anonymisation, and conformity with author guidelines. Manuscripts that pass initial assessment are registered in OJS, where subsequent review, revision, and production are tracked.
2. Editorial screening
An editor assesses originality, methodological plausibility, ethical compliance, and relevance. Manuscripts that are out of scope, seriously flawed, duplicative, or non-compliant may be declined without external review.
3. External peer review
At least three reviewers with relevant expertise are invited. Reviewers assess originality, methods, ethics, analysis, clarity, evidence, and whether conclusions are supported.
4. Revision
Authors receive anonymised comments and must provide a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers when necessary.
5. Editorial decision
The editor evaluates the manuscript and reports and decides to accept, request revision, or reject. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the editor remains accountable for the final decision.
Reviewer Qualifications
Reviewers for Eureka Herba Indonesia are appointed on the basis of the following qualifications:
- A master's degree at minimum, with demonstrated expertise in herbal medicine, natural products, pharmacology, pharmacy, or a directly relevant clinical discipline; a doctoral degree is preferred.
- A publication record within the preceding three years comprising at least one article as first or corresponding author, or at least three articles as a co-author, in an international scientific journal or a nationally accredited journal.
- Affiliation with an institution other than that of the authors, so that the independence of the review is preserved.
- A willingness to declare the absence of competing interests before accepting an assignment, and to withdraw from the assignment should a competing interest emerge.
- A commitment not to use artificial intelligence tools to analyse, evaluate, or draft review reports, and not to upload manuscripts or any part of them into AI applications.
The list of reviewers, together with their names and affiliations, is updated at least once a year and is publicly accessible on the Peer Reviewers page.
Review Timelines
The following service targets follow EHI's editorial workflow and the deadlines specified for individual assignments. Durations may vary with manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the number of revision rounds.
| Stage | Target duration |
|---|---|
| Initial editorial screening (desk review) | 1–3 days after receipt of a complete email submission |
| Reviewer response to invitation | 7 calendar days |
| Substantive peer-review stage | Approximately 2–4 weeks for the review stage; individual reviewer reports are normally due within 14 calendar days |
| Author revision | 7–14 calendar days (approximately 1–2 weeks), as specified in the decision letter |
| Re-review, where required | Normally 14 calendar days; the editor specifies the deadline for each assignment |
| Final decision from complete submission | 8–12 weeks as an overall planning target; additional revision rounds may extend this period |
Specific response, review, and revision deadlines are communicated through OJS invitations and editorial decision letters. Extensions require agreement with the handling editor.
The editorial office monitors deadlines in OJS and follows up with reviewers when a response or report is due. Reviewers who remain unresponsive after follow-up may be replaced, and the manuscript is reassigned to avoid unnecessary delay.
Conflicts, confidentiality, and appeals
Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when independence could reasonably be questioned. Manuscripts and reports remain confidential. Authors may appeal a decision using the Complaints and Appeals Policy.