Peer Review Policy

Overview and goals

The goals of peer review at CJNCP are to improve manuscripts, filter out work that does not meet ethical and methodological standards, and help readers trust the published record. Review reports should be evidence-based, specific, and actionable, focusing on whether claims are supported by data, whether methods are appropriate, and how findings translate into practice.

Editorial and review workflow

Stages from submission to decision

Submission & initial checks: Administrative screening ensures files are complete, the article fits the journal scope, and ethics and data statements are present.
Editor triage (desk evaluation): An editor evaluates relevance, originality, and basic methodological quality. Manuscripts may be declined without external review if clearly out of scope or not ready.
Reviewer selection: Editors invite at least two independent reviewers with complementary expertise. Conflicts of interest are screened.
Double-blind review: Reviewers assess the manuscript and provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive feedback to authors.
Editorial decision: Typical outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Editors may consult an additional reviewer when reports diverge.
Revision cycles: Authors respond point-by-point and submit a tracked-changes file or marked-up PDF/Word; editors verify whether concerns are fully addressed.
Final checks: Before acceptance, editors confirm ethics statements, data availability, permissions/credit lines, and reporting guideline adherence.

Expected timelines

Timeframes vary by topic and reviewer availability. We aim to manage a swift yet thorough process. The table below describes typical expectations for a standard submission.

Stage	Target duration	Notes
Initial admin & desk evaluation	5–10 days	Incomplete or out-of-scope submissions may be returned/declined at this step.
Reviewer invitation & confirmation	3–7 days	We invite alternates if no response; authors may suggest qualified reviewers.
Review period	14–28 days	Extensions may be granted on request; editors may proceed with available reports to avoid delays.
Author revision window	10–30 days	Complex revisions may receive additional time upon request.
Editorial re-evaluation	7–14 days	May include a second review round for major revisions.

What reviewers evaluate

Significance and relevance: Does the work address a clinically meaningful problem for nurses and patient care?
Originality: Are the insights or data new or a substantive replication/extension?
Methods & analysis: Are design, sampling, instruments, and statistical/qualitative analyses appropriate and reported transparently?
Ethics & consent: Are approvals and consent adequate? Are privacy protections sound?
Data & materials: Are data availability and code statements present and reasonable?
Clarity: Is the manuscript well organized, readable, and accessible to practitioners?
Practice implications: Do conclusions follow from results, with realistic recommendations?

Confidentiality and anonymity

Peer review at CJNCP is double-blind: reviewers do not know author identities and authors do not know reviewer identities. All manuscripts and review materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process. If a reviewer wishes to involve a trainee in a co-review, they must obtain editor permission in advance and list the trainee’s name in the confidential review form.

Conflicts of interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationships or activities that could bias their judgment—such as recent co-authorships, institutional ties, financial interests, or personal relationships. Editors reassign manuscripts to avoid conflicts and may request an additional reviewer when needed. Authors disclose funding and competing interests in the manuscript and submission forms.

Quality and tone of reviews

Reviews should be courteous, specific, and constructive. We ask reviewers to provide line-referenced feedback, cite evidence, and suggest feasible improvements. Criticism of the work is welcome; criticism of the authors is not. Reviews containing ad hominem remarks or discriminatory language will be removed from consideration.

Model review structure

Summary: One paragraph stating what the paper claims and the main strengths/limitations.
Major comments: Methodological or interpretive issues that affect validity or clarity.
Minor comments: Specific edits, missing citations, figure/table improvements, clarity fixes.
Practice perspective: Suggestions to strengthen clinical applicability and usability.

Use of automated and AI tools in peer review

Reviewers may not submit text that was generated by AI tools as their own original assessment without disclosure. AI systems must not receive any confidential manuscript content unless the service guarantees confidentiality under a suitable agreement. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and confidentiality of their reports and should disclose any tool usage in their confidential comments to the editor.

Data, images, and research ethics checks

Editors may screen manuscripts for image integrity and request original files, protocols, or de-identified data as appropriate. Reviewers should flag concerns about selective reporting, over-interpretation, or privacy risks. If major concerns arise, editors may pause review and request clarifications or documents (e.g., ethics approvals, consent forms, or data dictionaries).

Decision categories and what they mean

Decision	Typical conditions	What authors should provide
Accept	Only minor cosmetic edits remain	Final files, formatting updates, author proofs
Minor revision	Limited clarifications; figures/tables tweaks; minor methods detail	Point-by-point response; revised manuscript; clean + marked copy
Major revision	Substantive methodological or interpretive changes; additional analysis	Comprehensive response; revised analysis; updated materials
Reject	Out of scope; critical flaws; insufficient contribution	Authors may consider re-submission after substantial redesign or a more suitable venue

Author revision and response expectations

Provide a clean and a marked version (tracked changes or highlighted PDF) of the revised manuscript.
Reply point-by-point to each reviewer/editor comment, quoting the comment or using unique identifiers.
For declined suggestions, supply a brief rationale and, where relevant, supporting literature.
Update data availability, ethics, and funding statements if changes occurred during revision.
Ensure figures are accessible (readable labels; color-blind-safe palettes; descriptive captions).

Author-suggested and opposed reviewers

Authors may suggest qualified reviewers and list individuals they prefer to exclude, with reasons (e.g., direct competitors or prior disputes). Editors may use suggestions at their discretion and will avoid suggested reviewers where conflicts are likely.

Handling suspected misconduct during review

If reviewers or editors suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, or ethical non-compliance, the editor may request additional information, involve independent experts, or escalate according to the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement. When readers could be misled, the journal may post an interim notice on a published article while investigation proceeds.

Appeals and complaints

Authors can appeal a decision by submitting a reasoned letter addressing reviewer and editor points. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the initial decision and may include an additional expert assessment. Complaints about process, bias, or professional conduct are handled via the journal’s Grievances Policy.

Transparency, independence, and diversity

CJNCP maintains editorial independence. We work to diversify reviewer pools across geography, gender, career stage, and methodological expertise, and we welcome constructive co-reviews from supervised trainees to support capacity building. Editors monitor decision consistency and review quality through periodic audits and feedback.

Reporting guidelines and checklists

Authors should follow discipline-appropriate reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for reviews, COREQ for qualitative research, SQUIRE for QI). Editors and reviewers may request the relevant checklist and a populated flow diagram when applicable.

Frequently asked questions

Is CJNCP review single- or double-blind?

Double-blind. Authors should remove identifying details from the manuscript and file metadata; reviewers’ identities are not shared with authors unless a reviewer explicitly requests to sign their report.

Can I recommend reviewers?

Yes. Provide names, affiliations, and verified institutional emails. Editors will avoid conflicts and are not obliged to use suggested reviewers.

What if I need more time to review?

Please request an extension before the due date so we can manage timelines. We aim to balance thoroughness with timely decisions for authors.

May I involve a trainee in my review?

Yes, with prior editor permission. Name the trainee in the confidential form and ensure they understand confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules.

Do you share review reports after publication?

We do not routinely publish review reports. At the editor’s discretion, anonymized excerpts may be shared with authors of related submissions to improve transparency and learning.

How are disagreements between reviewers resolved?

The handling editor considers the arguments and evidence in each report and may request an additional review or adjudication when opinions diverge significantly.

Ethics and Malpractice Statement • Plagiarism Policy • Open Access Policy • Copyright and Licensing • Withdrawal Policy • Grievances Policy • Privacy Statement

Tags: Peer Review Double-Blind Reviewer Conduct Confidentiality Appeals