Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a central mechanism for ensuring the integrity, rigor, and scholarly quality of academic publishing. The Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) employs a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another. This approach safeguards impartiality, reduces bias, and maintains focus on the scientific merit of submitted work. CNJ’s peer review process adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review.
The peer review process consists of several structured stages: editorial screening, reviewer selection, evaluation, decision-making, revision, and final acceptance. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, ethical reliability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback while maintaining strict confidentiality.
CNJ prohibits the use of generative AI tools to process or evaluate manuscript content during review, in order to protect confidentiality and uphold accountability. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest, maintain professionalism, and adhere to established deadlines. Editors retain final responsibility for decisions and ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to ethical standards throughout the process.
This policy defines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors in the peer review process and establishes mechanisms for managing appeals, conflict of interest, confidentiality breaches, and reviewer misconduct. The objective is to maintain the highest level of scientific and ethical integrity in all published work.

1. Peer Review Policy
Peer review is a foundational element of high-quality scholarly publishing. It provides expert evaluation, enhances manuscript quality, and ensures that only scientifically rigorous and ethically sound work is published. The CNJ adopts a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure impartiality and minimize bias.
This policy aligns with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the journal’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement, and international standards for editorial transparency and research integrity. It applies to all submitted manuscripts, editors, editorial board members, and reviewers participating in the CNJ review process.

2. Objectives of Peer Review
Peer review at CNJ aims to ensure that published work meets the highest standards of scientific validity, ethical conduct, readability, and relevance to the field of nursing and health sciences.
Primary objectives:

• Evaluate the originality, methodological rigor, and scientific contribution of the manuscript
• Identify strengths, limitations, and areas for improvement
• Ensure compliance with reporting guidelines (e.g., EQUATOR Network)
• Detect ethical issues such as plagiarism, data inconsistencies, or lack of ethical approval
• Provide constructive, professional, and unbiased feedback
• Support editorial decision-making (accept, revise, reject)

3. Review Model and Structure
CNJ uses a multi-stage, double-blind peer review process designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and quality control.

Double-Blind Review

• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
• Manuscripts must be anonymized prior to review
• Any identifying information must be removed during editorial screening

Number of Reviewers

• A minimum of two qualified external reviewers is required for original research
• Additional or specialized reviewers may be invited when needed
• Editorial board members may serve as reviewers, provided no conflict of interest exists

Eligible Reviewers
Reviewers must:

• Demonstrate scholarly expertise in the subject area
• Have a track record of peer-reviewed publications
• Understand ethical principles of peer review
• Have no conflicts of interest with authors or institutions

4. Stages of the Peer Review Process
The peer review process includes initial editorial screening, reviewer selection, manuscript evaluation, decision-making, revision, and final acceptance. Each stage includes structured responsibilities and timelines.

Stage 1 — Editorial Screening
The editorial office and handling editor assess whether the manuscript:

• Fits the scope of CNJ
• Demonstrates originality and potential scientific value
• Meets ethical requirements (e.g., ethics approval, informed consent)
• Passes similarity screening
• Meets structural and reporting standards

Manuscripts may be:

• Sent back for technical revision
• Rejected without external review
• Forwarded to peer reviewers

Stage 2 — Reviewer Selection
Editors select reviewers based on:

• Subject-matter expertise
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Previous performance and reliability
• Professional and ethical behavior

Review invitations include:

• Title and abstract of the manuscript
• Expected review timeline
• Confidentiality statement

Reviewers must accept or decline promptly.

Stage 3 — Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for:

Scientific Quality

• Research design and methodology
• Validity and robustness of results
• Interpretation and scientific reasoning
• Contribution to existing literature

Ethical Considerations

• Ethical approval and compliance
• Informed consent
• Data transparency
• Responsible handling of human/animal subjects

Presentation and Clarity

• Structure, logic, and coherence
• Grammar and readability
• Adherence to journal guidelines

Constructive Feedback
Reviewers must:

• Provide detailed, actionable comments
• Support critiques with rationale
• Maintain professionalism at all times

Confidential Comments to Editor
Reviewers may provide:

• Concerns about misconduct
• Suspected plagiarism
• Major methodological issues

Stage 4 — Editorial Decision
Editors synthesize reviewer feedback and make one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Resubmit for Review
• Reject

Decisions are based on:

• Reviewer evaluations
• Scientific merit
• Ethical compliance
• Journal relevance

Final responsibility lies with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

Stage 5 — Revision and Re-review
Authors must:

• Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
• Highlight changes in the revised manuscript
• Clarify or justify any deviation from reviewer suggestions

Revised manuscripts may undergo:

• Re-review by original reviewers
• Additional review by new experts
• Editorial assessment

Stage 6 — Final Acceptance and Production
Upon acceptance:

• Manuscript proceeds to copyediting
• Authors review proofs
• Editorial office prepares final publication version

5. Responsibilities in Peer Review

Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must:

• Maintain strict confidentiality
• Provide objective, evidence-based assessments
• Declare conflicts of interest
• Return reviews on time
• Avoid discriminatory or unprofessional language
• Report ethical concerns or suspected misconduct

Responsibilities of Editors
Editors must:

• Ensure an unbiased and competent review process
• Select qualified reviewers
• Maintain confidentiality
• Manage conflicts of interest
• Follow COPE procedures in case of misconduct
• Make transparent and fair editorial decisions

Responsibilities of Authors
Authors must:

• Submit manuscripts that meet ethical and reporting standards
• Revise manuscripts thoroughly
• Respond respectfully to reviewer feedback
• Avoid identifying information in anonymized versions

6. Confidentiality
Confidentiality is essential for maintaining trust, fairness, and ethical integrity in peer review.
Requirements:

• Reviewers must not share manuscript content
• Manuscripts cannot be discussed outside the review process
• Data or ideas obtained during review may not be used for personal benefit
• Editors must secure manuscript files and communications

7. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review
Reviewers and editors must decline involvement if they have:

• Recent collaboration with authors
• Shared institutional affiliations
• Financial interests
• Personal relationships that may bias review
• Competitive academic interests

COI violations compromise review integrity and may result in removal from the reviewer database.

8. AI Use During Peer Review
Reviewers must not:

• Upload manuscript content into AI or third-party systems
• Use AI to generate review comments
• Allow AI tools to judge scientific quality

Permitted limited uses:

• Local grammar-checking tools
• Formatting assistance

Confidentiality must never be compromised.

9. Appeals and Disputes
Authors may appeal decisions by submitting:

• A detailed rebuttal
• Evidence addressing reviewer/editor concerns
• Clarification on disputed points

Appeals are reviewed by:

• The Editor-in-Chief
• An independent senior editor (if required)

Decisions on appeals are final.

10. Reviewer Misconduct and Corrective Actions
Misconduct includes:

• Breaching confidentiality
• Using manuscript content for personal gain
• Submitting AI-generated reviews
• Conflicts of interest not disclosed
• Unprofessional or abusive comments

Editorial actions may include:

• Removal from reviewer pool
• Notification to institutions
• Retraction of influenced articles
• Blacklisting from future participation

11. Policy Review and Updates
This policy is reviewed regularly to remain aligned with:

• COPE standards
• Evolving peer review practices
• Ethical guidelines in scholarly publishing
• Updates will be documented publicly.