Reviewer's Responsibilities

1) Core principles of the CJNCP reviewer role

  • Integrity: Evaluate evidence honestly; separate personal preferences from methodological standards.
  • Independence: Disclose and recuse when conflicts exist or might be perceived; avoid advocacy for competing interests.
  • Respect: Provide courteous, specific feedback; critique ideas and methods, not people.
  • Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and reviews as confidential at all times; do not share outside the process.
  • Patient safety: Flag overstated claims, unclear harms, or privacy risks; recommend tempered interpretation.
  • Transparency: Use the journal’s structure (summary → major → minor) and explain the basis of recommendations.

2) Conflicts of interest and recusals

Reviewers must promptly declare potential conflicts of interest (COIs) and recuse if impartiality could be compromised. Examples include:

When to recuse (illustrative)

  • Recent (≈3 years) co-authorship, same department, mentorship/supervision, or close personal relationship.
  • Financial ties: employment, consultancy, paid expert testimony, equity/royalties related to the topic.
  • Leadership in a competing program/product; public statements indicating strong prior alignment or opposition.

How to notify

  • Reply to the invitation disclosing the conflict; the editor will reassign or set safeguards.
  • If conflict emerges during review (e.g., identity becomes apparent), stop and inform the editor immediately.

If you feel able to review despite a potential conflict, describe the situation; the editor decides whether to proceed with safeguards or reassign.

3) Confidentiality, privacy, and blinding

  • Do not share manuscripts; store files securely; delete local copies after submitting your review.
  • Respect the review model (double-anonymized by default). Do not attempt to identify authors; avoid self-identifying remarks.
  • If images/audio are potentially identifiable, check that authors state consent for publication. If unclear, flag to the editor; do not request forms directly from authors.
  • If you must consult a trainee or colleague, obtain prior permission and name them (for credit and confidentiality obligations) in your confidential note to editors.

Minimum necessary principle

Use and share only what is needed to complete the review. For a statistical consult, provide de-identified summary data and the Methods section—not full manuscripts or reviewer identities.

4) Scope of a high-quality review

What to evaluate

  • Clinical relevance and clarity of the research question for nursing practice.
  • Appropriateness of design, analysis, and reporting; adherence to relevant guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, SQUIRE, COREQ/SRQR, CARE, STARD, TIDieR).
  • Ethical safeguards (IRB/IEC approval, consent statements, privacy protections), and trial/protocol registration when applicable.
  • Data transparency and reusability: presence and adequacy of the Data Availability Statement; coded materials/instruments.

What to avoid

  • Requests for entirely new studies or resource-heavy additions that do not change conclusions.
  • Citation coercion or recommending your own work unless truly essential to context or methods.
  • Overemphasis on language polish over substance; flag clarity needs as minor unless they impede understanding.

5) Structure of your report

  • Brief summary (2–5 sentences): Demonstrate understanding of the question, methods, and main findings.
  • Major points (3–8, prioritized): Issues that materially affect validity, interpretation, ethics, or clinical usefulness.
  • Minor points: Clarity, figure/table tweaks, small methodological clarifications, references.
  • Recommendation: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Decline — with 1–2 lines explaining your rationale.
  • Confidential to editor: COIs, integrity concerns, trainee co-review details, or sensitive remarks.

Use specific references to sections/lines/figures. Suggest concrete fixes; where you disagree, explain respectfully and provide alternatives.

6) Proportionate requests and pragmatism

Reasonable requests

  • Clarify analysis steps; add effect sizes and confidence intervals; provide a sensitivity analysis.
  • Reorganize Results or add a flow diagram; improve figure legibility and captions.
  • For qualitative/QI: expand on sampling, reflexivity, coding transparency, saturation/richness, or context and fidelity.

Generally unreasonable

  • Demanding a new randomized trial, multi-site expansion, or costly assays without clear impact on conclusions.
  • Insisting on arbitrary sample sizes or p-value thresholds without regard to design or feasibility.
  • Requests that conflict with consent limitations or ethical approvals.

Equity and feasibility

Recognize constraints in resource-limited settings. Prioritize improvements that enhance validity and practical usefulness without imposing inequitable burdens.

7) Methods, statistics, qualitative and QI specifics

Quantitative/statistical checks

  • Design fit (e.g., trial vs observational); allocation/concealment; handling of missing data.
  • Appropriate models; prespecified vs exploratory analyses; effect sizes and uncertainty; multiplicity/adjustments when needed.
  • Interpretation proportional to data; avoid “spin” from statistically significant but clinically trivial effects.

Diagnostic/measurement studies

  • STARD elements; spectrum of disease; threshold choice; calibration; decision impact for nursing practice.

Qualitative research

  • Appropriateness of approach (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography) and alignment with question.
  • Sampling strategy, reflexivity, coding procedures, and trustworthiness (triangulation, member checking, audit trail).
  • Thick description, context, and ethical sensitivity in quoting participants.

Quality improvement/implementation

  • SQUIRE use; context, fidelity, adaptations; run charts/control charts or appropriate time-series methods.
  • Feasibility, sustainability, and implications for bedside practice and education.

8) Integrity, image checks, and data transparency

  • Flag suspicious similarities or image issues (duplicated panels, splicing, inconsistent scale bars) privately to the editor.
  • Global brightness/contrast adjustments are acceptable if uniform and disclosed; manipulative edits are not.
  • Encourage clear Data Availability Statements with repository links or justified restrictions (privacy, law, community agreements).
  • For case reports with identifiable elements, confirm that consent for publication is stated explicitly.

When you suspect misconduct

Describe concrete observations to the editor using the confidential box (e.g., “Figure 2A appears duplicated in 2C with rotation”). Avoid accusatory language; do not contact authors directly.

9) Responsible use of AI and computational tools

  • Do not upload confidential manuscript text, images, or data to external tools that retain or train on user inputs.
  • Local tools for grammar/organization may be used cautiously; you remain responsible for accuracy and confidentiality. Disclose brief usage in the confidential note to editors.
  • Do not rely on AI outputs to allege misconduct; base concerns on your expert review and specific evidence.

10) Co-reviewing, mentoring, and recognition

Before involving a trainee

  • Obtain the editor’s permission first.
  • Ensure the trainee reads this page and agrees to confidentiality and blinding.
  • Disclose the trainee’s full name and role in the confidential note; you remain accountable for the final report.

Recognition

  • On request and subject to the journal’s model, co-reviewers may receive credit (e.g., certificate, system acknowledgment).
  • Signed reviews are optional and only where the journal/editor invites them; anonymity is respected by default.

11) Timelines, extensions, and communication

Stage Illustrative window Your responsibility
Invitation response ~3–5 business days Accept if available and unconflicted, or decline promptly with suggested alternates.
Initial review ~2–3 weeks Notify early if an extension is needed; do not go silent.
Re-review after major revision ~1–2 weeks Focus on changes; avoid adding new criteria unless essential.

If you must withdraw after accepting, inform the editor immediately so another reviewer can be engaged without delay.

12) Tone, civility, and constructive phrasing

Examples

Do say: “The allocation process may introduce selection bias. Please clarify sequence generation and concealment and consider a sensitivity analysis.”

Avoid: “The methods are terrible.”

Do say: “Given the pragmatic design, emphasize estimation (effect sizes with CIs) rather than null-hypothesis testing alone.”

Avoid: “Increase your sample to 500.”

Do say: “Table 2 could be clearer if outcomes were grouped by timepoint; a footnote explaining missing data handling would help.”

13) Review template (copy–paste scaffold)

Title: [paste manuscript title]
Manuscript ID: [ID]
Review model: [double-anonymized/single/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, feasible fix.]
- [Issue #2]
- [Issue #3]
(3–8 essential items)

3) Minor points
- [Clarity, figures/tables, small method clarifications, references.]

4) Ethics & privacy
- [IRB/IEC approval/waiver; consent statements; identifiable media; trial/registry IDs.]

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

6) Recommendation
- [Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Decline] + brief rationale.

Confidential to editor
- [Conflicts; integrity concerns; need for specialist review; trainee co-review if any.]

14) Communication snippets (use and adapt)

Accepting invitation

“Thank you for the invitation to review MS-[ID] (‘[Short Title]’). I confirm availability to deliver the review by [date]. No conflicts to declare.”

Declining due to conflict

“I must decline review of MS-[ID] due to a potential conflict ([brief reason]). Suggested alternate reviewers: [Name, affiliation, email], [Name, affiliation, email].”

Requesting extension

“Could I have an extension to [new date] for MS-[ID]? If that timeframe is not workable, please let me know so you can reassign.”

15) After submitting your review

  • Delete local copies of the manuscript and supplementary files once submitted (unless the editor asks you to retain them temporarily for re-review).
  • Do not contact authors directly. Any follow-up questions or clarifications should go through the editor.
  • If you later discover a serious error in your review (e.g., misread methods), inform the editor so the record can be amended.

16) Ethical sensitivities and patient safety

  • Pay special attention to interventions with potential safety implications (medication dosing, infection control, device use). Recommend tempered claims and clear limitations where appropriate.
  • For vulnerable groups (children, cognitively impaired persons, marginalized communities), assess consent processes, risk/benefit framing, and community engagement.
  • For qualitative research, watch for inadvertent re-identification through detailed narratives; suggest composite descriptions or broader contextualization when necessary and ethical.

17) Equity, language, and inclusivity

  • Encourage person-first, non-stigmatizing language and culturally respectful framing.
  • Ask authors to contextualize results with regard to different settings (rural/urban, resource-constrained, varied cultural contexts).
  • Discourage excessive self-citation and promote balanced referencing that reflects global nursing scholarship.

18) Frequently asked questions

FAQ

May I cite or share the manuscript elsewhere?
No. Manuscripts under review are confidential and cannot be shared or cited.

Can I include my trainee as a co-reviewer?
Yes, with prior permission and disclosure. You remain responsible for the final report.

Preprints?
CJNCP accepts submissions previously posted as preprints. Treat them as context, but focus your review on the submitted manuscript.

How much detail is needed in the review?
Be specific and actionable. Provide enough detail that authors can implement changes and editors can audit the reasoning behind your recommendation.

19) Professional conduct and boundaries

  • Maintain a courteous, neutral tone even when identifying significant flaws.
  • Do not use privileged information for personal or professional gain.
  • Avoid social media commentary on active submissions or confidential editorial matters.

20) Alignment with related CJNCP policies

  • Reviewer Guidelines — practical how-to, templates, and scoring rubric.
  • Peer Review Process — overall workflow and timelines.
  • Ethical Standards for Authors — authorship, originality, data integrity, human/animal ethics, consent, conflicts, and AI tool use.
  • Confidentiality and Ethics for Editors — privacy and incident response standards that underpin the review process.

21) Contact

Questions about scope, conflicts, timelines, or sensitive cases should be directed to 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.