Reviewer Guidelines

Our Reviewer Guidelines aim to provide reviewers with clear expectations and responsibilities to facilitate constructive feedback for authors. This process aids authors in improving their contributions to the nursing field, regardless of whether their submission is accepted, revised, or rejected. Below are the core responsibilities and points for reviewers, followed by key considerations during the review process.

Core Responsibilities:

  1. Manuscript Evaluation: Assess the manuscript's relevance to the Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, its novelty, and the value it offers our readers. Verify the validity of the research methods, the completeness of statistical analyses, and whether the data and literature adequately support the conclusions.
  2. Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, specific, and actionable suggestions to authors, particularly if revisions are recommended. Provide explicit details about the necessary adjustments.
  3. Practical Demands: Be mindful of the revision timeframe, typically within one month (up to three months for complex studies).
  4. Recommendation Clarity: Clearly indicate if the manuscript is worth revising.
  5. Language and Presentation: Note if the manuscript's language or structure affects understanding.
  6. Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript information as strictly confidential.
  7. Conflict of Interest: Disclose any conflicts of interest.
  8. Reviewer Identity: List all reviewers involved in assessing the manuscript.
  9. Integrity Concerns: Report any indications of scientific misconduct.
  10. Consistency in Revisions: When reviewing revised manuscripts, avoid raising new issues that could have been addressed initially.

Considerations Before and During the Review Process

  • Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. If it does not, please notify the editor and suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Time Commitment: Reviews should be completed within two weeks. Inform the editor if you cannot meet this timeframe or if, after agreeing, unexpected delays arise.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts to the editorial office. Questions about conflicts of interest can be directed to the editorial team.

Confidentiality Note

All manuscript details are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not use any data from the manuscript for personal or financial gain. Upon submission of your review, any manuscript copies should be deleted or destroyed. After publication, reviewers are free to reference the paper as a published source.

Assessing Manuscripts for the Journal of Nursing Education and Practice

Reviewers play a vital role in evaluating manuscripts to ensure they meet the Journal of Nursing Education and Practice's standards. Key evaluation aspects include relevance, originality, technical quality, comprehensive discussion, reference accuracy, and presentation quality. Below are the primary criteria for manuscript assessment.

  1. Suitability: Evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and interests. Provide a rationale for your recommendation.
  2. Novelty: Assess the study's originality and significance. Highlight strengths and weaknesses and discuss how it advances the field compared to existing research.
  3. Validity of Experiments: Review the soundness of experimental design and statistical methods. Note any logical or methodological flaws and, if possible, suggest improvements. Each experiment should specify sample sizes, reproducibility, error measurements, and appropriate statistical analyses.
  4. Validity of Conclusions: Determine whether the data fully supports the conclusions and identify if alternative interpretations have been overlooked.
  5. Discussion of Current Literature: Check if citations are current, relevant, and comprehensive. Recommend additional references if significant studies have been omitted.
  6. Language and Presentation: Comment on the clarity and readability of the manuscript, including the quality of figures. Highlight instances where poor language impacts comprehension. Note if the title accurately represents the content, if length adjustments are needed, and if additional figures or supplemental information would improve clarity.
  7. Scientific Misconduct: Report any suspected scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or "salami" publishing (splitting data into minimal publications rather than presenting a comprehensive study).

Writing a Constructive Review Report

1. Identifying Key Findings

Summarize the study's main goals, findings, strengths, and weaknesses briefly to provide context for further comments.

2. Comprehensive Assessment

Address all points from the review criteria (scope, novelty, validity, etc.), ensuring thorough feedback that covers each critical aspect.

3. Objectivity and Respect

Maintain an objective tone, respecting the authors' approach, even if it's different from a hypothesis-driven method.

4. Clear Recommendation

Clearly indicate if the manuscript, with revisions, meets the standards of the Journal of Nursing Education and Practice.

5. Constructive Criticism

Provide specific, actionable feedback for improvements. Identify weaknesses with guidance on how they might be addressed.

6. Focus on Key Improvements

Suggest only essential additional experiments or changes. Keep in mind that revisions generally need to be completed within a month, so recommendations should be reasonable and achievable.

7. Professional Tone

Even when feedback is critical, avoid being offensive or overly harsh. If there are significant concerns, include them under confidential comments for the editor.

8. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Declare any conflicts of interest in the "Confidential Comments to Editors" section, along with the names of those involved in the review.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing revisions, consider the following additional guidelines:

1. Avoid Raising New Issues

Do not introduce new issues that were present in the original manuscript but weren't mentioned previously. However, if new data has been added, additional feedback on this data is appropriate.

2. Ensure the Manuscript is Current

Confirm that the manuscript and references are up-to-date and include any relevant recent publications.

Next Steps

Please submit the "Reviewer's Comments" form by the due date. Your recommendation will significantly influence the final editorial decision, and your honest feedback is valued. Separate any confidential notes to editors from comments intended for the authors.

The Editorial Process

1. Decision Process

Editors hold the authority to make the final decision on publication for each submission, relying on the insights and evaluations provided by reviewers.

2. Handling Conflicting Reviews

In instances of fundamental disagreement among reviewers, editors may opt to share all reviews with each reviewer. This encourages additional comments that could aid in reaching a decision. It's important to note that decisions are not strictly based on majority opinions; rather, the Academic Editor takes the lead in combining feedback from various experts. Editors consider reviewer recommendations, author comments, and any additional material that may not have been disclosed to reviewers during the assessment.

3. Recognizing Reviewers

Acknowledging the significant time and expertise that reviewers dedicate to the peer-review process is vital for ensuring their engagement and satisfaction. The Journal of Nursing Education and Practice has several measures in place to support and recognize reviewers:

  • Reviewer Certificate: A formal certificate of recognition is available for reviewers to acknowledge their contributions. This certificate can be requested from the editorial office and serves as a valuable credential that reviewers can present to their employers or academic institutions.
  • Reviewer Confirmation Letter: Additionally, reviewers can request a confirmation letter to further validate their involvement in the peer-review process.