Reviewer GuidelinesJournal of Clinical and Practical Nursing
Guidelines for JCPN peer reviewers on evaluating manuscripts, providing constructive feedback, and maintaining the standards of excellence that advance nursing science.
The Review Process
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of published nursing research. By carefully evaluating manuscripts for scientific rigor, originality, and clinical relevance, reviewers help ensure that JCPN publishes work that genuinely advances nursing practice and science.
When you receive a review invitation, please respond promptly indicating whether you can complete the review within two to three weeks. If you cannot review, suggest alternative reviewers with appropriate expertise. Declare any conflicts of interest before proceeding, including institutional affiliations, collaborative relationships, or competitive interests with the authors.
Complete your review within the agreed timeframe to help authors receive timely decisions on their work. If unexpected circumstances prevent you from meeting the deadline, notify the editor immediately so alternative arrangements can be made. Delayed reviews significantly impact authors and journal operations.
Evaluation Criteria
Scientific Rigor
Evaluate methodology, data analysis, and interpretation for soundness and appropriateness.
Originality
Assess whether the work provides new insights that advance nursing knowledge.
Clinical Relevance
Consider practical implications for nursing practice, education, or policy.
Clarity
Evaluate organization, writing quality, and accessibility for the intended audience.
Providing Constructive Feedback
Effective reviews are thorough, specific, and constructive. Identify both strengths and weaknesses, providing concrete suggestions for improvement rather than vague criticism. Frame comments respectfully, recognizing that authors have invested significant effort in their work. Distinguish between essential revisions and minor suggestions.
Maintain confidentiality throughout the process. Do not share manuscript content, discuss submissions with colleagues, or use privileged access to information for your own research purposes.
Structure your review report clearly, beginning with a summary of the manuscript's main contribution, followed by major concerns requiring attention, then minor suggestions for improvement. This organization helps editors synthesize feedback and provides authors with clear priorities for revision. Number your comments for easy reference in author responses.
Your recommendation should align with your assessment: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Briefly explain your reasoning in the confidential comments to the editor, noting any concerns not appropriate for author communication. If you believe you cannot fairly evaluate a manuscript after beginning review, notify the editor promptly.
If you must decline a review invitation due to workload or expertise mismatch, suggest alternative reviewers who might be well-suited for the manuscript. This helps maintain efficient peer review operations and ensures manuscripts receive qualified evaluation without excessive delays.
Questions About Reviewing?
Contact the editorial office for guidance on specific review situations.
Contact Us
