Peer Review Process

1) Guiding principles

  • Merit-based decisions: Acceptance depends on methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to nursing practice—not on ability to pay. Financial matters are firewalled from editorial decisions.
  • Respect for persons: Privacy and consent requirements are non-negotiable; we default to caution on identifiable material.
  • Constructive dialogue: Reviews should help authors improve their work and be specific, proportionate, and respectful.
  • Auditability: We maintain a confidential record of decisions, conflicts, reviewer identities, and policy deviations.

2) Review models and when we use them

Default model

  • Double-anonymized external peer review for research articles, systematic reviews, quality improvement (QI), qualitative studies, and case reports (after ethics/consent checks).
  • 2 external reviewers are typical; a 3rd may be added (e.g., statistical or qualitative methods specialist).

Variations

  • Single-anonymized: May be used for highly specialized content where blinding is impractical.
  • Editorial review: Educational, commentary, and invited pieces undergo editorial checks and may receive external review at the editor’s discretion.
  • Fast-track: Time-sensitive public-interest items (e.g., patient safety alerts) may be expedited without compromising integrity checks.

When the model differs from default, the decision letter will state why and what safeguards applied.

3) Process flow: from submission to decision

Submission ➜ Admin checks (files/metadata) ➜ Handling Editor assigned ➜ Initial triage (scope, ethics, reporting, similarity, image checks) ├─ Early decline with guidance (if unsuitable) └─ Send to external review (2–3 experts) ➜ Reviews received & synthesized by editor ➜ Decision: Accept | Minor Rev | Major Rev | Decline └─ If Revisions: author response & tracked changes ➜ Editor check or re-review ➜ Final decision ➜ Acceptance ➜ Production & publication

Initial triage (illustrative checklist)

Item What editors verify Status
Scope & fit Clinical nursing relevance, article type adherence. OK Decline
Ethics & consent IRB/IEC approval or waiver, consent for identifiable media, trial registration if applicable. OK Hold
Reporting standards CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/SQUIRE/COREQ/CARE etc., checklist uploaded. OK Request
Blinding Author identifiers removed; file metadata cleaned. OK Fix
Similarity & images Text overlap screening; figure authenticity and proper adjustments. OK Investigate
Data availability Data Availability Statement present; repository links or justified restrictions. OK Request

If a manuscript is clearly unsuitable (out of scope, ethically non-compliant, or unsound), editors may issue an early decline with constructive guidance to conserve reviewer time.

4) Reviewer selection and expectations

Selection criteria

  • Clinical/topic expertise (e.g., critical care, community health, education, implementation science).
  • Methodological expertise (statistics, qualitative methods, QI/implementation).
  • Diversity of perspectives (geography, practice setting, career stage); avoid conflicts of interest.

Reviewer responsibilities

  • Deliver constructive, specific, and proportionate feedback using the journal’s review template.
  • Respect confidentiality and blinding; declare conflicts; request permission before co-reviewing with a trainee.
  • Focus recommendations on changes that materially improve validity, clarity, and clinical usefulness.

See Reviewer Guidelines for detailed expectations, tone examples, and the scoring rubric.

5) Indicative timelines

Stage Target window Notes
Initial triage ~7–10 business days Scope/ethics/reporting checks; early guidance if unsuitable.
Reviewer invitations ~5 business days Replace non-responders promptly.
External reviews ~2–4 weeks Varies by complexity and availability.
Decision after reviews ~5 business days Editor synthesizes and issues decision.
Revision assessment ~7–14 business days Re-review if substantive; editor-only if minor.

These are planning targets, not guarantees. Editors communicate proactively about delays—especially for patient-safety-sensitive content.

6) Decision categories and what they mean

Accept

  • Only minor editorial changes remain.
  • Proceed to proofs, licensing, and production.

Minor revision

  • Limited, clearly fixable issues; no new data expected.
  • Provide a clean and tracked manuscript plus a point-by-point response.

Major revision

  • Substantive issues (methods, analysis, interpretation) that are remediable.
  • Re-review likely; editor lays out prioritized requests and expectations.

Decline

  • Out of scope, unsound, or ethically non-compliant despite opportunity to address.
  • Editors provide specific reasons and, where feasible, constructive suggestions.

Tone & transparency

Decision letters are courteous and specific. When reviews conflict, editors explain the synthesis and the decisive considerations, including patient-safety factors where relevant.

7) Revisions: expectations for authors

What to submit

  • Tracked-changes manuscript + clean version.
  • Point-by-point response mapping each comment to changes made (or reasoned rebuttal).
  • Updated figures/tables, reporting checklists, and supplementary materials.

What editors check

  • All essential issues addressed; integrity of revisions (e.g., updated stats, figure corrections).
  • Ethics statements and data availability remain accurate after changes.
  • Whether re-review is needed (e.g., substantial new analysis).

If you disagree with a request, explain respectfully with evidence; propose alternatives aligned with your design and data.

8) Integrity checks and ethical safeguards

  • Similarity screening: Contextual assessment distinguishes acceptable methods reuse from plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Image integrity: Editors may request originals where duplication or manipulation is suspected. Global adjustments are permissible if uniform and disclosed.
  • Human/animal research: IRB/IEC approval or waiver and informed consent for identifiable media are required where applicable.
  • Trial/protocol registration: Prospective registration is expected for trials; deviations must be disclosed and justified.
  • Data transparency: A Data Availability Statement is required; controlled access may be justified by privacy or agreements.

Allegations of misconduct

CJNCP documents concerns, seeks author explanation and materials, and, if needed, coordinates with institutions or funders. Proportionate outcomes include correction, expression of concern, or retraction. We protect whistleblowers and maintain confidentiality.

9) Confidentiality and anonymity

  • Under double-anonymized review, author and reviewer identities are concealed; editors sanitize communications to avoid inadvertent disclosure.
  • Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use them for personal advantage; delete local copies after submitting the review.
  • Authors should remove identifiers and file metadata before submission; identifiable case materials require explicit consent for publication.

See Confidentiality and Ethics for Editors and Reviewer Guidelines for practical safeguards and checklists.

10) Fast-track pathway (public interest)

  • Reserved for time-sensitive content (e.g., patient-safety alerts, outbreak guidance) where rapid dissemination benefits care.
  • Editors may shorten intervals (e.g., prioritized reviewer invitations) while retaining core integrity checks.
  • Any deviation from the default model is documented in the audit trail and summarized in the decision letter.

11) Communications and transparency

Authors

  • Receive acknowledgment of submission and assignment to a handling editor.
  • Are informed of major status changes (e.g., sent to review, decision rendered) through the platform.
  • May contact the editorial office for clarifications; please include manuscript ID and concise context.

Reviewers

  • Receive clear scopes, timelines, and reminders; may decline or request extensions.
  • Can submit confidential notes to editors alongside the author-visible report.
  • May receive decision summaries once the process concludes, consistent with confidentiality.

12) Use of AI and computational tools

  • Editors may use privacy-preserving tools for similarity or image checks; usage is documented. Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to tools that retain or train on data.
  • Reviewers must not paste confidential text/images into external tools that store inputs. If local tools assisted grammar or organization, disclose briefly in the confidential note to editors.
  • Authors must disclose any AI tool use and remain responsible for originality, accuracy, permissions, and confidentiality.

13) Appeals and complaints

  • Appeals: Authors may appeal a decision with a concise rationale and evidence (e.g., misinterpretation of methods). The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated uninvolved editor reviews and may seek an additional expert opinion.
  • Complaints: Concerns about process, bias, or reviewer conduct are acknowledged promptly and investigated impartially; outcomes are recorded in the audit trail.
  • Appeals/complaints must be courteous, factual, and specific; avoid personal remarks.

14) Post-publication stewardship

  • We welcome reasoned post-publication correspondence that advances clarity or patient safety.
  • Where errors are identified, CJNCP issues proportionate notices (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions/replacements) and updates indexes.
  • Authors should update preprints and repositories to point readers to the version of record and any notices.

15) Quality indicators and continuous improvement

Process indicators

  • Time-to-first-decision and time-to-accept.
  • Reviewer responsiveness and diversity.
  • Re-review cycle counts (aim to minimize avoidable cycles).

Integrity & outcomes

  • Rates and timeliness of corrections/retractions.
  • Author satisfaction signals and clarity of decision letters.
  • Adherence to reporting standards and data availability expectations.

16) How this page interacts with related policies

  • Reviewer Guidelines — detailed expectations and templates for reviewers.
  • Ethical Standards for Authors — authorship, originality, data integrity, human/animal ethics, consent, conflicts, and AI tool use.
  • Editor’s Guidelines & Editorial Responsibilities — operational steps and accountability for editors.
  • Confidentiality and Ethics for Editors — privacy safeguards and incident response.
  • Publication Ethics Policy — overarching framework for integrity and corrections.

17) Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Common questions

How many reviewers do you use?
Typically two external reviewers; a third may be added when specialized expertise is needed or when reviews conflict strongly.

Can I suggest reviewers?
Yes. We consider suggestions alongside independent searches and conflict checks. We also honor reasonable exclusion requests.

Do you review preprinted work?
Yes. Disclose the preprint at submission; update it with the CJNCP DOI on publication.

What if my study involves identifiable images?
Provide explicit consent for publication and ensure figures are appropriately anonymized where feasible.

Why was my manuscript declined after triage?
Likely due to scope, ethical non-compliance, or serious methodological issues. We aim to provide constructive guidance to help you determine next steps.

18) Contact

Questions about the peer review process can be directed to the editorial office via the submission platform. Include the manuscript ID (if available) and a concise description of your query for a focused response.