All manuscripts received by BIOGRAPH-I journal will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers via Open Journal System (OJS) based on originality, contribution to the field of the scientific area, coherence of the analysis, grammar, and style. This journal uses the framework of the Double-Blind Peer Preview Process policy, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The final decision on the acceptability, or otherwise, of manuscripts will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting. Scanning for instances of plagiarism present in manuscripts will be conducted using Turnitin software. In each manuscript, the peer reviewer will be rated on the substantial and technical aspects. Peer reviewers who collaborate with BIOGRAPH-I journal are experts in biostatistics and health information system, demographic, and reproductive health. They were experienced in the prestigious journal management and publication that was spread around national and internationally.

The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

• accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form
• accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections
• accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
• revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes
• reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions

The Board of Editors will consider the reviewer’s decision to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.

• Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3-6 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision.
• Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has revised it in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct necessary revisions.
• Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.
• Publication confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is under the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website and print publication. The author(s) will receive the final manuscript version as a PDF file. PROOF of all manuscripts will be provided to the corresponding author. The PROOF should be read carefully and checked against the typed manuscript, and the corrections may be returned within 7 days. 
• Rejection confirmation. If the manuscript is rejected, the author will be notified by Chief Editor with a statement of reasons for rejection. The author may appeal to Chief Editor if he or she believes an unfair judgment has been made, which encloses the author’s reasons. Chief Editor will review and discuss the reasons with Section Editors responsible for the manuscript and later decide whether to accept or deny the appeal.