Reviewer Guidelines

1) Purpose & role of CJNCP reviewers

  • Advance nursing practice: Focus on clinical relevance, feasibility, and implications for patient outcomes, education, or systems.
  • Strengthen manuscripts: Offer actionable guidance—prioritize what will materially improve validity, clarity, and usefulness.
  • Safeguard ethics: Flag privacy concerns, consent gaps, unregistered trials, or undue risk to participants or communities.
  • Support open science: Encourage transparent reporting, data availability, and clear limitations.

Acceptance decisions rest with editors; your role is to inform those decisions and help authors improve their work.

2) Conflicts of interest & recusals

If any situation could reasonably be perceived as biasing your judgment, disclose and recuse. Examples:

  • Recent co-authorship (≈3 years), same department, mentorship/supervision, close personal relationship.
  • Financial ties (employment, consultancy, equity, paid expert work) related to the topic or competing products/programs.
  • Strong public positions or leadership roles in competing initiatives.

When unsure, inform the editor. If you can review with documented safeguards, the editor will advise; otherwise decline promptly so we can reassign.

3) Confidentiality & privacy

  • Do not share manuscripts or use them for personal advantage. Store files securely and delete local copies after submitting your review.
  • Do not attempt to identify authors or reviewers in blinded models. Avoid language that hints at your identity or institution.
  • If patient images/audio could be identifiable, check that authors state consent for publication; if unclear, flag to the editor (do not request forms directly).

Consulting a colleague

If you wish to involve a trainee or colleague, request permission first. Name the co-reviewer in your confidential note to editors and ensure they agree to the same confidentiality rules.

4) How to write a high-quality review

Structure

  • Summary (2–5 sentences): Briefly restate the question, methods, and main findings to show understanding.
  • Major points (prioritized): 3–8 issues that materially affect validity, interpretation, ethics, or clinical usefulness.
  • Minor points: Clarity, figure/table tweaks, small methodological clarifications, typos.
  • Confidential to editor: Conflicts, ethical concerns, reviewer identity if signed review, or any sensitive notes.

Principles

  • Be specific: cite line/figure numbers and suggest concrete fixes.
  • Be proportionate: distinguish “must fix” from “nice to have.”
  • Be civil: critique the work, not the authors; avoid dismissive tone.
  • Be transparent: disclose uncertainty and recommend specialist review (e.g., statistics, qualitative methods) when needed.

Avoid adding new criteria late. If a critical issue emerges after revision, explain clearly why it is essential now.

5) Scoring & recommendation rubric

Domain 1 — Major deficiency 3 — Mixed/adequate 5 — Strong
Clinical relevance Minimal practice value; unclear implications. Relevant but narrow; needs clearer linkage to practice. High importance; actionable for nursing practice/education/policy.
Methodological rigor Design/analysis inappropriate or under-reported. Generally appropriate with notable gaps. Sound design; transparent analysis; limitations addressed.
Ethics & privacy Missing/unclear approvals, consent, or risk management. Approvals present; some clarifications needed. Clear approvals/consents; strong safeguards.
Reporting quality Key elements missing; figures/tables confusing. Readable with gaps; fixable. Clear, well-organized; adheres to guidelines.
Originality Incremental or overlapping with prior work. Moderately novel; contextualization needed. Distinct contribution; advances knowledge.

Recommendation options

  • Accept — Only minor editorial edits remain.
  • Minor revision — Limited, clearly fixable issues; no new data expected.
  • Major revision — Substantive issues; re-review likely after changes.
  • Decline — Out of scope, unsound, or ethical deficiencies.

6) Requests for new analyses or experiments

  • Proportionate requests: Clarify analysis steps, provide effect sizes/CI, add a sensitivity analysis, or reorganize Results for clarity.
  • Generally unreasonable: Entirely new studies, wholesale redesigns, or resource-intensive additions that do not change conclusions.
  • Qualitative research: Focus on saturation, reflexivity, coding transparency, and thick description—not “bigger N.”
  • QI/implementation: Emphasize context, fidelity, feasibility, and real-world constraints; avoid demands that undermine pragmatic design.

7) Methods, reporting standards & checklists

Use appropriate guidelines

  • Trials — CONSORT (and CONSORT-extensions as appropriate).
  • Observational — STROBE; diagnostic — STARD.
  • Systematic reviews — PRISMA; protocols — PRISMA-P.
  • Quality improvement — SQUIRE.
  • Qualitative — COREQ or SRQR; interventions — TIDieR.
  • Case reports — CARE.

What to check

  • Clear research question; justified methods; inclusion/exclusion; handling of missing data.
  • Trial/registry IDs when applicable; ethics/consent statements; data availability statements.
  • For qualitative work: sampling strategy, reflexivity, coding approach, example quotes, and trustworthiness strategies.

8) Data, statistics & image integrity

Data & statistics

  • Are outcomes and analysis plans appropriate to the design? Are effect sizes and uncertainty reported?
  • Do subgroup analyses appear data-driven? If so, ask for transparency and cautionary framing.
  • For implementation/QI: are run charts/control charts or time-series methods used appropriately?

Figures & images

  • Watch for duplicated panels, inconsistent backgrounds, altered scale bars, or “too perfect” images.
  • Global brightness/contrast adjustments are acceptable if applied uniformly; manipulative edits are not.
  • If concerned, flag to the editor; do not directly accuse—request originals or clarification via the editor.

If you suspect fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or unethical conduct, report privately to the editor using the confidential box.

9) Patient safety & sensitive topics

  • Identify potential harms from misleading claims (e.g., medication safety, infection control, device use). Recommend tempered language or additional safeguards.
  • For vulnerable populations, check consent processes, risk mitigation, and community engagement.
  • For case material with identifiable features, ensure explicit consent for publication is stated.

10) Equity, language & inclusion

  • Encourage person-first, non-stigmatizing language. Avoid deficit framing; ask authors to contextualize structural factors.
  • Invite authors to reflect on generalizability and relevance for diverse settings (rural/urban, resource-constrained, varied cultural contexts).
  • Discourage citation coercion and excessive self-citation; recommend balanced, practice-relevant references.

11) Data & materials availability

  • Look for a Data Availability Statement. If data cannot be shared, authors should justify (privacy, law, agreements) and share metadata, instruments, and codebooks when feasible.
  • Encourage persistent identifiers (e.g., dataset DOIs). For code, ask for version and dependencies or a repository link when appropriate.

12) Using AI tools as a reviewer

  • Do not upload confidential manuscript text, images, or data to external tools that retain or train on user inputs.
  • If you use local tools for grammar or organization, you remain fully responsible for accuracy and confidentiality; disclose brief usage in the confidential note to the editor.
  • Never let a tool generate accusations of misconduct; such concerns must be grounded in your expert judgment and communicated privately to the editor.

13) Co-reviewing & mentoring

  • Co-reviewing with a trainee is welcome with prior permission. Disclose the trainee’s name and role in your confidential note.
  • Ensure the trainee reads these guidelines and agrees to confidentiality. You, as invited reviewer, remain accountable for the final report.
  • If the journal offers crediting options for co-reviewers, we will record them on request.

14) Timelines, extensions & communication

Typical windows

  • Invitation response: ~3–5 business days.
  • Standard review: ~2–3 weeks (varies by article type).
  • Re-review after major revision: ~1–2 weeks focused on changes.

Best practices

  • If you cannot meet the deadline, request an extension early or decline so another reviewer can be engaged.
  • Communicate through the submission system; avoid sharing manuscript files via unsecured channels.

15) Examples of tone

Constructive phrasing

Do say: “The intervention is promising; however, the allocation method may introduce selection bias. Please clarify the sequence generation and concealment, and consider a sensitivity analysis.”

Avoid: “The methods are terrible.”

Do say: “Table 2 is dense; grouping outcomes by timepoint could improve readability.”

Avoid: “The authors clearly don’t know how to present data.”

Do say: “Given the small sample, emphasize estimation (effect sizes with CIs) rather than significance.”

Avoid: “Increase your sample to 500.” (unrealistic)

16) Review template (copy-paste)

Title: [paste manuscript title]
Manuscript ID: [ID]
Review model: [blinded/signed]

1) Summary (2–5 sentences)
- [What was studied, how, key findings, and relevance to nursing practice.]

2) Major points (prioritized)
- [Issue #1: what/where; why it matters; concrete fix.]
- [Issue #2]
- [Issue #3]
(keep to 3–8 essential items)

3) Minor points
- [Clarity, figure/table fixes, references, small methods clarifications.]

4) Ethics & privacy
- [IRB/IEC approval and consent statements present? Any identifiable media? Trial/registry IDs if applicable?]

5) Reporting & transparency
- [CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/SQUIRE/COREQ/etc. checklist use; data availability statement; code/instruments.]

6) Recommendation
- [Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Decline]
- [Optional 1–2 lines explaining choice.]

Confidential to editor
- [Conflicts, integrity concerns, need for specialist review, trainee co-review (if any), or sensitive remarks.]

17) FAQs & reviewer recognition

Frequently asked questions

Can I cite my own work?
Recommend only if genuinely essential for context or methods. Avoid citation coercion.

Preprints?
Preprints are acceptable sources to cite; treat them cautiously and encourage updating citations to the version of record upon publication.

What if I suspect misconduct?
Describe concrete observations privately to the editor (e.g., duplicated images, improbable statistics). Do not accuse authors directly.

What if English language is a barrier?
Focus on science and structure. Suggest language polishing as a minor point if clarity can be improved.

Recognition

  • We can provide reviewer certificates or brief letters recognizing your contribution on request.
  • Where available, we can register review credit with your identifier (e.g., ORCID-linked services) according to the journal’s confidentiality model.
  • We periodically acknowledge our reviewer community (opt-in) while respecting anonymity preferences.

18) Contact

If you have questions about scope, conflicts, timelines, or sensitive cases, contact the handling editor via the submission system. For complex ethics or confidentiality issues, write to the editorial office referencing the manuscript ID and a concise description of the concern.