Peer Review Process & Policy

Double-blind Review
Journal of Pubnursing Sciences implements a rigorous double-blind review process to ensure anonymity between authors and reviewers, maintaining objectivity in the evaluation process. When a manuscript is deemed appropriate for the journal’s scope, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise to assess the scientific quality of the article. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority in deciding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

If delays occur during the review process, the editor may request members of the editorial board to assist in reviewing the article. In certain cases, authors may be asked to propose alternative reviewers, provided there is no evident conflict of interest. These measures are taken to uphold the integrity, efficiency, and transparency of the review process.

Letters to the editor and editorials are not subject to the formal peer review process, as outlined in the editorial process and section policies.

To facilitate the double-blind review process, authors are required to upload the following documents separately:

  • Title Page (with author details): This should include the article title, author names with affiliations, acknowledgments, funding sources, conflict of interest statements, and contact information for correspondence.
  • Blinded Manuscript: The main body of the article (including references, tables, and figures) must not include any information that could identify the authors.
  • Supplementary Material: Relevant supporting documents will also undergo peer review.

Peer Review Process
Reviewers will receive an official invitation via email, which includes a link to accept or decline the review invitation. Upon acceptance, reviewers can download the manuscript and complete the provided evaluation form.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective evaluations covering the following aspects:

  • The quality of the study design and methodology.
  • The relevance of the findings to the current scientific literature.
  • The accuracy of the analysis, language, and grammar.

Review comments must be constructive and professional. Disparaging language will not be tolerated. Reviewers are expected to provide an initial recommendation regarding the manuscript’s status, with the following options:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is ready for publication without revision.
  2. Minor Revisions: Requires minor improvements before acceptance.
  3. Major Revisions: Requires substantial revisions and re-review.
  4. Out of Scope: The manuscript is more suitable for submission to another journal.
  5. Rejected: The manuscript has fundamental weaknesses that cannot be resolved.

The final decision on the manuscript's status remains with the Editor-in-Chief.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
The ethical guidelines for reviewers align with the principles set forth by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Reviewers are required to:

  • Review manuscripts within their area of expertise and complete the review in a timely manner.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and refrain from using the information for personal benefit.
  • Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest to the editor.
  • Provide objective feedback without bias related to the authors’ origin, beliefs, or characteristics.
  • Uphold professional integrity by not misrepresenting their identity during the review process.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Allegations of misconduct will be addressed following COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines. Investigations will be conducted to identify and transparently address any potential misconduct.