Peer Review

Peer Review Policy
Journal Of Nursing Practice (JNP) uses double-anonymous peer review to assess the originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to nursing. This policy applies to original research articles, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and case studies.

1. Review Model and Minimum Requirements
Manuscripts proceeding beyond initial editorial screening must be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the work.
Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors and authorized editorial personnel have access to identities for administrative and ethical oversight.
The journal takes reasonable steps to protect anonymity but recognizes that identities may sometimes be inferred. Reviewers who recognize an author must notify the editor and disclose any resulting conflict.
No research manuscript is accepted solely on the basis of initial editorial screening.

2. Submission and Editorial Screening
Authors must submit separate Title Page and anonymized Main Article files according to the Author Guidelines. Editors check:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and accepted article types;
  • Originality and identifiable scholarly contribution;
  • Completeness, clarity, and reporting quality;
  • Methodological and ethical suitability;
  • Author declarations and submission requirements; and
  • Potential overlap, plagiarism, or other integrity concerns.

Editors may return a submission for technical correction or reject it without external review when it clearly fails the journal’s requirements. Similarity screening follows the Plagiarism, Corrections, and Retraction Policy. A similarity percentage alone does not determine plagiarism or acceptance.

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence
Editors select reviewers according to subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant research or publication experience, and availability. Reviewers must be independent of the author group. Relationships such as recent collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, supervision, financial interests, or personal disputes must be disclosed and assessed before appointment. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but editors independently verify their identity, expertise, and suitability. Authors cannot select or contact reviewers on the journal’s behalf. A reviewer’s inclusion on the journal’s public reviewer list does not replace verification of suitability for each manuscript.

4. Scope of Review
Reviewers must provide substantive assessments addressing, as applicable:

  • Originality, research gap, objectives, and contribution to nursing;
  • Appropriateness of the design, sampling, instruments, and procedures;
  • Quality and transparency of data analysis;
  • Consistency between data, results, interpretations, and conclusions;
  • Ethical approval, consent, confidentiality, and other protections;
  • Critical engagement with relevant literature and citation accuracy;
  • Limitations and implications for nursing; and
  • Completeness of reporting, tables, figures, and supplementary material.

Review reports must identify specific concerns and explain their significance. Review is not limited to grammar, formatting, or reference style. Supplementary material forming part of the scientific assessment is made available to reviewers.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:

  • Accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise and time;
  • Declare competing interests and withdraw when impartiality cannot be maintained;
  • Treat manuscripts and review communications as confidential;
  • Provide respectful, objective, and evidence-based comments;
  • Report suspected ethical problems privately to the editor; and
  • Avoid coercive citation requests and use of unpublished information for personal advantage.

Reviewers must not delegate an assignment or share manuscript material with another person without editorial authorization.

6. Prohibition on Reviewer AI Use
Under JNP’s AI Policy, reviewers must not use AI to assess, analyze, interpret, or summarize manuscripts; prepare or translate manuscript-specific review comments; recommend publication decisions; or upload manuscript or review material to AI services. These restrictions also apply when an editor acts as a reviewer.

7. Editorial Decisions
The handling editor assesses the manuscript and the quality, reasoning, and relevance of the reviews. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not constitute a vote. Possible decisions are:

  • Accept;
  • Minor revision;
  • Major revision; or
  • Reject.

When reviews conflict or important questions remain unresolved, the editor may request clarification, obtain an additional independent review, or seek methodological advice. Acceptance requires satisfactory resolution of substantive concerns. Publication charges, institutional relationships, and commercial considerations must not determine the decision.

8. Revision and Further Review
Authors must submit a point-by-point response explaining each change and providing a reasoned response to recommendations not adopted. Files intended for reviewers must remain anonymized. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers, particularly when substantial scientific changes are required. Editors may request further revision or reject a manuscript if significant concerns remain unresolved. A revision invitation does not guarantee acceptance.

9. Review Deadlines and Communication
Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reports within 21 days of accepting an invitation. Authors are normally given 14 days for minor revisions and 28 days for major revisions. Extensions may be agreed with the editor. The deadline communicated for the individual assignment applies. These are operational targets, not guaranteed publication times. Reviewer availability, additional reviews, integrity investigations, and revision complexity may extend processing. The editorial office should communicate significant delays and revised expectations to authors.

10. Editor-Authored Manuscripts and Conflicts
Submissions by editors or editorial board members follow the same review requirements. An independent editor manages reviewer selection, assessment, and the decision. The submitting editor must not access confidential handling information or participate in decisions concerning their own manuscript.

11. Confidentiality and Review Records
Reviewer reports and identities are not routinely published. Anonymized comments are communicated to authors, while confidential comments to the editor remain restricted. The editorial office retains reviewer assignments, reports, revisions, responses, and decisions in OJS or another controlled editorial record according to institutional retention requirements. Records must permit verification that substantive review occurred while protecting confidentiality.

12. Integrity Concerns, Complaints, and Appeals
Processing may be suspended when credible ethical concerns arise. Investigation and corrective action follow the Publication Ethics and Plagiarism, Corrections, and Retraction Policy. Authors may appeal by emailing jnpstrada@gmail.com, identifying the manuscript and providing specific scientific or procedural grounds. Appeals are assessed by an editor without a relevant conflict. Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the publisher for independent assessment. Appeals do not guarantee acceptance. This policy is informed by relevant COPE guidance on ethical peer review and transparency in scholarly publishing.