Editor's Guidelines

1) Editorial roles and scope

Editor-in-Chief (EiC)

  • Sets policy, appoints editors, oversees ethics and corrections/retractions.
  • Handles escalations, appeals, complex conflicts of interest, and public-interest cases.

Associate/Handling Editors (HEs)

  • Conduct initial triage, select reviewers, synthesize reviews, and issue decisions.
  • Ensure compliance with reporting and ethics standards and consult specialists as needed (e.g., stats, qualitative methods).

All editors must follow the Ethics for Editors and Confidentiality and Ethics for Editors pages (see related policies) and update their conflict-of-interest declarations annually.

2) Ethical baseline and conflicts of interest

  • Editors must recuse when a personal, financial, institutional, or intellectual conflict could reasonably be perceived to influence judgment (e.g., recent co-authorship, same department, advisory roles).
  • Declare potential conflicts to the EiC; transfer the manuscript to an unconflicted editor before any decision-making steps.
  • Protect confidentiality: do not share manuscripts or reviewer identities outside the editorial workflow; avoid AI tools that store or reuse confidential content.
  • Editorial independence: decisions are made on scholarly merit and clinical relevance only; APC or waiver status never enters consideration.

3) Initial checks and triage

Handling Editors perform early checks within a reasonable window to accelerate decision-making and conserve reviewer time.

Screen What to verify Status
Scope & fit Clinical nursing relevance, contribution to practice or patient outcomes, article type matches content. OK Hold Decline
Ethics & consent IRB/IEC approval or waiver; consent statements; trial/registry IDs; privacy protections for patient images/data. OK Hold Decline
Reporting compliance CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/SQUIRE/COREQ/CARE/TIDieR/STARD as applicable; checklist uploaded. OK Request
Anonymization Blinded manuscript and figures; file metadata stripped. OK Fix
Similarity & image checks Similarity screening; figure authenticity; inappropriate adjustments or duplication. OK Investigate
Data availability Data Availability Statement present; repositories/DOIs or justified restrictions. OK Request

Rapid decline (with guidance)

When a manuscript is clearly out of scope, ethically non-compliant, or methodologically unsound, editors may issue an early, constructive decline outlining specific reasons and suggesting suitable alternatives or improvements.

4) Reviewer selection and invitation

Selection principles

  • Match clinical/methodological expertise (e.g., critical care nursing, qualitative methods, implementation science).
  • Balance perspectives (clinical practice, education, policy) and avoid conflicts (recent co-authorship or same department).
  • Promote diversity in geography, career stage, and professional background; include nurse practitioners and bedside nurses when relevant.

Invitations and follow-up

  • Send concise invitations with title/abstract and expected review timeframe.
  • Follow up once; replace non-responders quickly to avoid delay.
  • If specialized review (stats/qualitative) is needed, add a third reviewer or internal specialist consult.

Editors may consider author-suggested reviewers but must independently assess conflicts and suitability. Honor reasonable exclusions by authors.

5) Conducting and managing peer review

  • Encourage constructive, respectful feedback focused on methods, analysis, and clinical relevance.
  • Discourage requests for unnecessary citations or excessive experimental additions that do not alter conclusions.
  • If reviews conflict strongly, obtain an additional review or consult EiC.
  • Protect anonymity as per the journal’s review model; sanitize reviewer comments that inadvertently reveal identity.

Reviewer guidance prompts

  • Is the research question clinically meaningful and situated in current nursing practice?
  • Are methods appropriate and reported with sufficient detail for replication?
  • Are statistics or qualitative analyses sound and transparently described?
  • Are patient privacy and ethical safeguards adequate?
  • Do the conclusions follow from the data, with limitations acknowledged?

6) Decision-making standards

Editors synthesize reviewer feedback and their own assessment to reach a clear decision. Use consistent language and provide actionable guidance.

Decision Use when Editor guidance to authors
Accept Only minor editorial changes remain; scientific conclusions are sound. Congratulate, list any final edits, and outline next steps for proofs and licensing.
Minor revision Issues are small and do not require re-analysis or new data. Bullet the required edits; request a clean and marked version and a response-to-reviewers document.
Major revision Substantive concerns about methods, analysis, or interpretation that are remediable. List specific, prioritized requests; explain expectations for re-review and possible outcomes.
Decline Out of scope, ethical deficiencies, or fundamental methodological flaws. Provide constructive reasons; suggest alternative venues or redesigns where appropriate.

Tone and transparency

Decision letters must be courteous, specific, and free of bias. Where reviewers disagree, explain how the final decision was reached and which points were decisive.

7) Managing revisions

Author response expectations

  • Point-by-point response mapping reviewer/editor comments to changes.
  • Marked (tracked) and clean manuscripts, updated figures/tables, revised checklists.
  • When disagreeing, authors must provide respectful, evidence-based justification.

Editor actions

  • Check that all essential points are addressed; send for re-review if substantive issues remain.
  • Verify ethics statements, data availability, and permissions after major changes.
  • Seek specialist input (stats/qualitative) for revised analyses where needed.

8) Integrity checks and investigations

  • Similarity screening: Evaluate overlap contextually; distinguish acceptable methods text reuse from plagiarism.
  • Image integrity: Watch for duplications, splicing, and inconsistent backgrounds; request originals if suspicious.
  • Data anomalies: Consider statistical review; request raw data or logs when concerns arise.
  • AI disclosures: Ensure any computational tool use is disclosed and validated by authors.

Escalation pathway

  1. Document the concern and initial evidence in the manuscript record.
  2. Seek explanation and materials from the corresponding author with a clear timeframe.
  3. If unresolved, consult the EiC and, when appropriate, the author’s institution or funder.
  4. Decide on proportionate action: correction, expression of concern, or retraction/replacement.

9) Confidentiality, privacy, and sensitive content

  • Never disclose reviewer identities or share manuscripts outside the review workflow.
  • Redact patient identifiers in editorial files; confirm consent for identifiable images.
  • Handle whistleblower reports with care; avoid retaliation and preserve confidentiality.

10) Complaints and appeals

  • Complaints: Acknowledge promptly; investigate impartially; provide a written outcome and any remedies.
  • Appeals of decisions: Authors may appeal with a concise rationale and evidence; the EiC (or a delegate not involved in the original decision) reviews and may seek an additional expert opinion.
  • All appeals and outcomes are recorded in the manuscript audit trail.

11) Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and replacements

Proportionate actions

  • Correction: Honest errors that do not invalidate conclusions.
  • Expression of Concern: Unresolved serious doubts pending investigation, especially for patient-safety issues.
  • Retraction: Unreliable findings, major ethical breaches, or data fabrication/falsification.
  • Replacement: Corrected version issued with clear linkage; prior version labeled accordingly.

Implementation standards

  • Update HTML/PDF with a visible notice; crosslink bi-directionally between article and notice.
  • Maintain the scholarly record; watermarks or headers may be used for retracted PDFs.
  • Notify indexes/identifiers to propagate status changes.

12) Special content: invited pieces, thematic issues, and fast-track

  • Invited content: Must undergo editorial quality checks and, where appropriate, external peer review; declare any relationships.
  • Thematic/special issues: Define aims, guest editor roles, reviewer selection safeguards, and conflict-of-interest management.
  • Fast-track: Reserved for time-sensitive public-interest content; ensure integrity is not compromised by speed.

13) Inclusive and respectful editorial practice

  • Encourage inclusive language, culturally sensitive framing, and diverse citation practices.
  • Support accessibility: prompt authors to provide alt text, captions, and plain-language summaries when feasible.
  • Consider the impact of editorial requests on resource-limited teams; avoid unnecessary burdens.

14) Operational standards and timelines

Stage Target window Notes
Initial triage ~7–10 business days Scope/ethics/reporting checks; early decline if unsuitable.
Reviewer invitations ~5 business days Replace non-responders promptly.
Review completion ~2–4 weeks (varies) Adjust by complexity and availability; communicate delays.
Decision after reviews ~5 business days Summarize and issue clear decision letter.
Revision assessment ~7–14 business days Re-review if substantive; otherwise editor-only check.

These are planning targets, not guarantees. Editors should communicate proactively if delays arise, especially in patient-safety-sensitive content.

15) Documentation, audit trails, and data protection

  • Maintain a complete record: editor assignments, conflicts declarations, decision letters, reviewer identities (confidential), and timelines.
  • Do not store identifiable patient data beyond what is necessary for editorial assessment; restrict access to authorized staff.
  • If platforms are migrated, ensure secure transfer and preservation of audit logs.

16) Quality indicators and editor feedback

Quality indicators (illustrative)

  • Time-to-first-decision and time-to-accept.
  • Reviewer diversity and responsiveness.
  • Correction/retraction rates (aim for low and timely where needed).
  • Author satisfaction and clarity of decision letters.

Feedback and development

  • Regular editorial meetings to share challenges and align standards.
  • Training on statistical/qualitative methods, integrity checks, and inclusive practices.

17) Communication templates (snippets)

Invitation to review (excerpt)

Subject: Invitation to review for CJNCP — “[Title]”

Dear [Name],
We invite you to review the above manuscript for CJNCP. The review would be due in [X] days. Please reply with your availability and any potential conflicts. A brief focus: [methods/clinical area]. Thank you for supporting rigorous, practice-relevant nursing research.

Decision letter (major revision, excerpt)

Dear [Corresponding Author],
Thank you for your submission to CJNCP. After external review, the editors invite a major revision. Please address the prioritized items below and provide a point-by-point response, a clean manuscript, and a tracked-changes version. We highlight items essential to reassessment: [1–5 bullets].

Decline with guidance (excerpt)

Dear [Corresponding Author],
We appreciate your submission. After initial assessment, we concluded that the manuscript is not a fit for CJNCP because [reasons]. We hope the following suggestions assist you in developing the work for an alternative venue: [bulleted advice].

18) Post-publication stewardship

  • Monitor post-publication correspondence; respond to credible concerns swiftly.
  • Coordinate with the editorial office for corrections or notices and update repositories and indexes accordingly.
  • Encourage authors to add practice-focused summaries or implementation notes when relevant.

19) Governance, updates, and contact

  • Versioning: This page is versioned; see the date modified in the metadata above.
  • Policy alignment: Editors must follow the Publication Ethics Policy, Ethical Standards for Authors, Reviewer Guidelines, and related pages.
  • Contact: Questions about conflicts, complex ethics, or corrections should be directed to the EiC via the editorial office contact page.