For Reviewers

For Reviewers

The Editorial Board sincerely appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity and credibility of the journal. Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing and plays a critical role in ensuring that published research is original, scientifically sound, ethically conducted and relevant to the journal's scope.

These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in conducting fair, objective, confidential and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Process

The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is initially screened by the Editorial Office to assess its suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept review invitations only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
  • Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance.
  • Submit reviews within the specified review period.
  • Provide constructive comments supported by scientific reasoning.
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Recommend improvements where appropriate.
  • Notify the Editor immediately if they are unable to complete the review.
  • Inform the Editorial Office of any ethical concerns identified during the review.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscript information as strictly confidential.
  • Not share the manuscript with colleagues or third parties without prior permission from the Editor.
  • Not discuss the manuscript outside the review process.
  • Not use unpublished information, ideas or data for personal or professional benefit.
  • Delete or destroy manuscript files after completing the review if requested by the journal.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if any actual or potential conflict of interest exists, including but not limited to:

  • Personal relationships with the authors.
  • Recent collaborations.
  • Institutional affiliations.
  • Financial interests.
  • Academic competition.
  • Any circumstance that may compromise impartiality.

Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the Editor before accepting the review assignment.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should immediately inform the Editor if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Image manipulation.
  • Ethical misconduct involving human or animal subjects.
  • Absence of ethics committee approval where applicable.
  • Inappropriate authorship.
  • Citation manipulation.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Any other breach of publication ethics.

Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected misconduct but should report concerns confidentially to the Editorial Office.

Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Originality

  • Is the research novel?
  • Does it contribute new knowledge?
  • Does it address an important research gap?

 2. Significance

  • Is the topic important to the discipline?
  • Does the study have scientific, clinical, educational, or public health relevance?

3. Title

  • Is the title concise, accurate, and reflective of the manuscript content?

4. Abstract

Review whether the abstract:

  • Clearly states the objectives.
  • Summarizes the methodology.
  • Presents the principal findings.
  • Provides an appropriate conclusion.
  • Includes suitable keywords.

5. Introduction

Assess whether the introduction:

  • Provides sufficient background.
  • Reviews relevant literature.
  • Identifies the research gap.
  • Clearly states the study objectives or hypotheses.

6. Methodology

Evaluate:

  • Study design.
  • Sampling strategy.
  • Sample size justification.
  • Eligibility criteria.
  • Ethical approval.
  • Informed consent.
  • Data collection procedures.
  • Outcome measures.
  • Statistical analysis.
  • Reproducibility of methods.

7. Results

Determine whether:

  • Results are presented logically.
  • Tables and figures are clear and necessary.
  • Statistical analyses are appropriate.
  • Findings correspond with study objectives.
  • Data presentation is free from unnecessary duplication.

8. Discussion

Assess whether the discussion:

  • Interprets findings appropriately.
  • Compares results with existing literature.
  • Explains similarities and differences.
  • Discusses strengths and limitations.
  • Highlights practical or clinical implications.

9. Conclusion

Review whether:

  • Conclusions are supported by the data.
  • Claims are not overstated.
  • Recommendations are justified.

10. References

Evaluate whether:

  • References are relevant and current.
  • Citations are accurate.
  • Appropriate reporting guidelines and reference style have been followed.

11. Language and Presentation

Assess:

  • Scientific writing quality.
  • Grammar and spelling.
  • Organization and clarity.
  • Formatting.
  • Quality of tables, figures and illustrations.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Provide balanced, respectful, and constructive comments.
  • Distinguish between major and minor revisions.
  • Support recommendations with clear scientific reasoning.
  • Avoid personal criticism of the authors.
  • Suggest additional literature only when genuinely necessary.

Publication Ethics Checklist

Reviewers should verify whether the manuscript includes, where applicable:

  • Institutional Ethics Committee approval.
  • Informed consent statement.
  • Clinical trial registration.
  • Conflict of interest disclosure.
  • Funding statement.
  • Author contribution statement.
  • Data availability statement.
  • Patient confidentiality safeguards.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

If reviewers use artificial intelligence tools to improve the wording or formatting of their review comments, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, originality, and integrity of the review.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content into publicly accessible AI platforms or any system that may compromise confidentiality.

Reviewer Recommendation

Based on the scientific evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit
  • Reject

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to:

  • Accept or decline the invitation within 5 days.
  • Submit the completed review within 2–3 weeks.
  • Inform the Editorial Office immediately if additional time is required.

Reviewer Authentication

To ensure transparency, accountability, and the authenticity of the peer-review process, reviewers are required to complete and sign the official Reviewer Evaluation Performa.

The following information is mandatory:

  • Reviewer's full name.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Official email address.
  • Date of review.
  • Electronic or handwritten signature.

The review will be considered complete only after submission of the signed reviewer performa.

The reviewer's signature confirms that:

  • The review was personally conducted by the reviewer.
  • The review is objective, independent and based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.
  • Any actual or potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed.
  • The reviewer agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the peer-review process.

Reviewer signatures are collected solely for editorial verification and record-keeping. They remain confidential and are never disclosed to the authors thereby preserving the integrity of the journal's double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal greatly values the time, expertise and dedication of its reviewers. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged annually or through certificates of appreciation while maintaining the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews.

Editorial Independence

Editors make publication decisions independently based on the reviewers' recommendations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies. Reviewers provide expert advice; however, the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

 

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Journal of Nursing and Allied Health is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity and transparency through a rigorous peer-review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an independent and unbiased evaluation by experts in the relevant field to ensure the originality, validity, significance and ethical conduct of the research.

The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review policy, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Complies with the journal's submission guidelines.
  • Meets the required standards of scientific writing and formatting.
  • Includes all mandatory declarations (e.g., ethical approval, informed consent, conflict of interest, funding statement, author contributions and data availability statement where applicable).
  • Meets the journal's originality requirements following a plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected before peer review.

Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor performs a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript to assess:

  • Scientific relevance.
  • Originality.
  • Methodological soundness.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Potential contribution to the field.

At this stage, manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or do not meet the minimum scientific standards may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise.
  • Research and publication experience.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Availability to complete the review within the required timeline.

The Editorial Office takes reasonable steps to ensure reviewer independence and impartiality.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process.

Under this system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Identifying information is removed from the manuscript before review whenever possible.

This process helps minimize bias and promotes fair, objective and independent evaluation.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Scientific importance.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Methodological quality.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Statistical analysis.
  • Validity of results.
  • Interpretation of findings.
  • Discussion and conclusions.
  • Quality of writing and organization.
  • Appropriateness of references.

Reviewers provide constructive comments intended to improve the quality of the manuscript and make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept.
  • Accept with Minor Revisions.
  • Major Revisions Required.
  • Reject with Encouragement to Resubmit.
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final editorial decision.

Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the Editor evaluates:

  • Reviewer comments and recommendations.
  • Scientific quality of the manuscript.
  • Ethical considerations.
  • Journal policies and editorial standards.

The Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept for Publication.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors should:

  • Revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
  • Submit a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.
  • Highlight or clearly indicate all changes made in the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Final Decision

Once the revised manuscript satisfies the reviewers and the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance for publication.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, author proof review and final publication.

Confidentiality

The journal treats all submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.
  • Disclose reviewer identities to authors.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless an open peer-review model has been explicitly adopted by the journal.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before participating in the review process.

Individuals with conflicts of interest will not participate in the editorial evaluation of the manuscript.

Ethical Standards

The journal expects editors and reviewers to identify potential concerns related to:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Image manipulation.
  • Unethical research involving humans or animals.
  • Authorship disputes.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Citation manipulation.

Where appropriate, the Editorial Office may request clarification, additional documentation, or initiate further investigation before making a final decision.

Reviewer Authentication

To ensure the authenticity and accountability of the peer-review process, reviewers are required to complete the journal's official Reviewer Evaluation Performa.

Each completed review must include:

  • Reviewer's full name.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Official email address.
  • Date of review.
  • Mandatory electronic or handwritten signature.

Reviewer signatures are collected solely for editorial verification and record-keeping. They remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors, thereby preserving the integrity of the journal's double-blind peer-review process.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process.

The typical timeline is:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Reviewer invitation and acceptance: Within 5 days
  • Peer review: 2–3 weeks
  • Author revision: 2–4 weeks (depending on the extent of revisions)
  • Final editorial decision: Within 1–2 weeks after receipt of the revised manuscript

These timelines are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error or significant misunderstanding may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should provide a clear justification and supporting evidence.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and the resulting decision will be final.

Commitment to Quality

The journal is committed to a fair, timely, transparent and ethical peer-review process. Through collaboration among authors, reviewers, editors, and the Editorial Board, the journal strives to publish high-quality research that advances scientific knowledge and contributes meaningfully to the academic community.

 

Contact Information

For any questions regarding the peer-review process, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office through the journal's official email address.

The Editorial Board thanks all reviewers for their invaluable contribution to maintaining excellence in scientific publishing.