Peer-Review Processes

1. Introduction

NERS Jurnal Keperawatan (NJK), published by the Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Andalas, is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, and publication ethics. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial process and is intended to assess the originality, scientific validity, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and clarity of submitted manuscripts.

NJK publishes scholarly work related to nursing science, nursing practice, nursing education, clinical care, community health, and healthcare services. The peer-review process is designed to ensure that manuscripts receive fair, independent, and constructive evaluation by qualified experts in the relevant fields.

NJK adopts a double-blind peer-review model for manuscripts eligible for external peer review. Under this model, authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with the authors' identities during the review process. The journal aims to conduct peer review in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Description

2.1 Peer Review

Peer review is the critical evaluation of a submitted manuscript by independent experts with relevant subject knowledge. The process assists editors in making informed editorial decisions and provides authors with constructive feedback to improve the quality and presentation of their research.

2.2 Double-Blind Peer Review

In the double-blind peer-review model:

The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers as far as reasonably possible.
The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors during the review process.
Manuscripts are assessed based on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and ethical standards rather than the authors' identities or affiliations.

Although anonymization helps reduce potential bias, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when a study has been presented publicly or its identity can be inferred from other information.

2.3 Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide independent, objective, confidential, and constructive assessments of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. Their evaluations should help determine whether a manuscript is scientifically sound, relevant to the journal's scope, ethically acceptable, and suitable for publication.

2.4 Role of Editors

Editors oversee the peer-review process, assess the suitability of submitted manuscripts, select appropriate reviewers, evaluate reviewer reports, and make editorial decisions.

Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor and are not determined solely by the number or recommendation of reviewers.

3. Peer-Review Policy

3.1 Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review

Research articles, review articles, and other scholarly manuscripts requiring external scientific assessment are subject to the journal's peer-review process.

Editorials, invited commentaries, corrections, letters, or other specific submission types may follow a different editorial assessment procedure where appropriate. The applicable procedure will depend on the manuscript type and the journal's editorial policies.

All submissions are subject to an initial editorial assessment before a decision is made to proceed with external peer review.

3.2 Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:

Falls within the aims and scope of NJK.
Meets the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements.
Demonstrates sufficient relevance and scholarly merit for further consideration.
Provides appropriate information regarding research methods and ethical approval, where applicable.
Complies with the journal's publication ethics and originality requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope or minimum editorial requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

The initial assessment does not guarantee acceptance or subsequent publication.

3.3 Selection of Reviewers

The handling editor selects reviewers based on their relevant expertise, research experience, publication record, and ability to provide an independent assessment of the manuscript.

Depending on the subject of the submission, reviewers may have expertise in areas such as nursing practice, clinical nursing, nursing education, community health nursing, healthcare management, research methodology, biostatistics, or other relevant health disciplines.

NJK aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers for manuscripts undergoing full external peer review, subject to the journal's editorial procedures and the availability of suitable reviewers.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Individuals with conflicts that could compromise their impartiality should decline the invitation.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted by the submission system. The final selection of reviewers rests solely with the editor. Suggested reviewers are independently assessed for suitability, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

The journal is not obliged to select author-suggested reviewers.

3.4 Confidentiality in Peer Review

All manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials must be treated as confidential.

Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not disclose manuscript content or information about the review process to unauthorized individuals without appropriate permission.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Manuscripts and associated materials must not be shared with third parties without authorization from the journal, except where disclosure is required by applicable law or appropriate publication ethics procedures.

3.5 Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations. Their comments should focus on the manuscript's scholarly content, including its objectives, methods, findings, interpretation, limitations, ethical considerations, and contribution to nursing or healthcare knowledge.

Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish major scientific or methodological concerns from minor recommendations concerning language, formatting, and presentation.

3.6 Timeliness of Reviews

NJK seeks to conduct peer review within a reasonable timeframe while allowing reviewers sufficient time to evaluate manuscripts carefully.

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the deadline communicated in the review invitation. If additional time is needed, reviewers should notify the handling editor as early as possible.

If a reviewer cannot complete an evaluation or becomes unavailable, the editor may invite another reviewer to help ensure the continuity of the editorial process.

3.7 Editorial Decisions

Following the assessment of reviewer reports and the editor's own evaluation, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any remaining editorial requirements.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo further review.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in NJK or does not meet the required scholarly, methodological, ethical, or editorial standards.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

Acceptance is not guaranteed by a favorable individual review, and rejection may occur when significant concerns remain unresolved.

3.8 Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors must address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and systematically.

Authors should provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not adopted, authors should provide a clear scientific or methodological justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to new reviewers, or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

The editor may request additional revisions or reject a manuscript if substantial concerns remain unresolved.

3.9 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Conflicts may include financial relationships, close personal or professional relationships, direct collaboration, institutional relationships, academic competition, or other circumstances that could influence the assessment.

Reviewers who cannot provide an independent evaluation should decline the invitation. Editors with relevant conflicts must arrange for an appropriately independent editor to handle the manuscript.

Authors are also responsible for disclosing relevant conflicts of interest in accordance with the journal's submission requirements.

3.10 Ethical Concerns and Research Integrity

Reviewers should notify the handling editor if they identify potential ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or questionable research practices.

For nursing and healthcare research involving human participants, patients, clinical records, or identifiable personal information, reviewers may assess whether the manuscript provides appropriate information about research ethics approval, informed consent, participant confidentiality, and other relevant safeguards.

Reviewers should describe their concerns objectively and provide supporting information where possible. They should not independently investigate allegations or contact authors about suspected misconduct without authorization from the journal.

NJK will assess credible concerns in accordance with its publication ethics procedures and relevant guidance.

3.11 Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or demonstrable bias has affected the decision.

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and should clearly explain the grounds for the appeal, supported by relevant evidence or a reasoned response to the issues raised.

An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration or acceptance. The journal may seek an independent editorial assessment where appropriate.

Complaints concerning the conduct of reviewers, editors, or the peer-review process will be handled fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's applicable complaints and appeals procedures.

3.12 Reviewer Recognition

NJK values the contributions of reviewers to the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Where appropriate, the journal may acknowledge reviewers collectively or through other forms of recognition, subject to reviewer consent and the journal's confidentiality requirements.

Reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors or the public through such recognition unless the reviewer has explicitly consented and the disclosure is consistent with the journal's policies.

3.13 Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished research.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or identifiable author information to publicly accessible or otherwise unauthorized artificial intelligence tools.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable editorial instructions. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their assessments.

AI tools cannot replace the independent expert judgment required for peer review.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialize the Policies

4.1 Manuscript Preparation for Double-Blind Review

Authors are responsible for preparing manuscripts in a form suitable for double-blind peer review.

Where required by the journal's submission instructions, authors should:

Provide author names, affiliations, and contact information in the designated title page or submission metadata rather than in the anonymized manuscript.
Remove author names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other direct identifying information from the main manuscript file intended for reviewers.
Review the wording of self-citations to avoid unnecessary identification of the authors while preserving accurate scholarly referencing.
Remove identifying information from document properties and file metadata where feasible.
Ensure that figures, tables, supplementary files, and other materials intended for anonymous review do not unnecessarily disclose author identities.

Authors must not remove information required to assess research ethics, scientific validity, or the provenance of data. If complete anonymization is not possible, the relevant limitations should be handled through the journal's editorial procedures.

4.2 Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

The handling editor identifies appropriate reviewers and sends invitations containing sufficient information about the manuscript's subject, the expected review tasks, the relevant deadline, and confidentiality obligations.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should confirm that they have sufficient expertise, are available to complete the review, and have no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Where a reviewer declines an invitation or does not complete a review, the editor may invite an alternative reviewer.

4.3 Conducting and Submitting Reviews

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts using the journal's review criteria and any applicable review form.

Their assessments should consider, where relevant:

Originality and relevance to nursing and healthcare.
Clarity of the research question and objectives.
Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.
Quality and suitability of data collection and analysis.
Accuracy and balance of the interpretation of findings.
Ethical approval, informed consent, and protection of participants, where applicable.
Clarity of presentation, quality of references, and acknowledgment of limitations.
Contribution to nursing science, nursing practice, education, or healthcare services.

Reviewers should submit their reports through the journal's designated editorial management system or another authorized channel specified by the journal.

4.4 Communication of Editorial Decisions

The handling editor considers the reviewer reports, the manuscript's suitability, and any relevant ethical or methodological concerns before issuing a decision.

Authors are informed of the editorial decision and receive the relevant reviewer comments, subject to confidentiality and editorial procedures.

When necessary, the editor may seek additional expert opinions or request clarification before reaching a final decision.

4.5 Monitoring and Record-Keeping

The journal's editorial management system is used, where available, to track manuscript submissions, reviewer invitations, review reports, editorial decisions, and communications with authors.

The journal aims to maintain appropriate records of the peer-review process in accordance with its editorial procedures and applicable data protection requirements.

Access to confidential manuscript and reviewer information should be restricted to authorized personnel.

4.6 Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

All reviewers are expected to:

Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
Provide objective, impartial, and constructive assessments.
Accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise.
Disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments when necessary.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor of delays.
Avoid using unpublished information for personal or third-party advantage.
Report suspected ethical or research integrity concerns to the editor.
Avoid delegating a review to another person without the journal's prior authorization.
Ensure that any permitted use of AI-assisted tools does not compromise confidentiality or the integrity of the review.

4.7 Policy Review

NJK will review this policy periodically and update it when necessary to reflect changes in scholarly publishing practices, research ethics, reviewer guidance, and editorial management systems.

The journal aims to maintain a fair, transparent, confidential, and scientifically rigorous peer-review process that supports the integrity and quality of published research.

References and Resources

NERS Jurnal Keperawatan (NJK) is committed to conducting peer review in a manner that promotes scholarly quality, fairness, confidentiality, research integrity, and responsible dissemination of nursing and healthcare research.