Reviewer Selection Criteria

The credibility, fairness, and scientific quality of peer review depend on the expertise, independence, integrity, and reliability of the reviewers selected. The Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) applies a structured reviewer-selection process to ensure that each manuscript is evaluated by qualified individuals whose subject, methodological, theoretical, clinical, or professional expertise is appropriate to the work under review.

Reviewer selection is based on the requirements of the individual manuscript and is not determined solely by academic title, institutional position, citation metrics, or previous inclusion in the journal’s reviewer database.

1. Core Eligibility Requirements
Reviewers should:

• Hold a relevant doctoral degree or other advanced academic or professional qualification appropriate to the manuscript’s subject and article type;
• Demonstrate current subject-area, methodological, theoretical, clinical, educational, or professional expertise relevant to the manuscript;
• Have an appropriate record of peer-reviewed publications, research activity, clinical scholarship, professional contributions, or other relevant scholarly work;
• Understand the research design, scholarly approach, or reporting requirements applicable to the manuscript;
• Be able to provide an independent, rigorous, constructive, and evidence-informed evaluation;
• Be able to communicate reviewer comments clearly and professionally in English;
• Have sufficient time to complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
• Agree to comply with CNJ’s requirements concerning confidentiality, conflicts of interest, research integrity, and responsible use of AI; and
• Have no known unresolved or substantiated conduct concern that would reasonably undermine confidence in the reviewer’s integrity or suitability.

A doctoral degree is ordinarily expected for manuscripts involving original research, evidence synthesis, concept analysis, or theory development. However, an experienced methodological, clinical, educational, policy, or professional expert with another appropriate advanced qualification may be selected when the editor determines that the individual possesses directly relevant expertise.

2. Expertise Appropriate to the Manuscript
Reviewer expertise should be matched to the article type, subject matter, design, and principal scholarly claims of the manuscript. Where applicable, reviewer selection should consider:

• Original Research Articles: relevant subject-area and quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, intervention, observational, or other design-specific expertise;
• Review Articles: relevant subject-area and evidence-synthesis expertise, including systematic, scoping, rapid, integrative, or narrative review methodology as appropriate;
• Concept Analysis: relevant conceptual, philosophical, theoretical, or concept-analysis expertise;
• Theory Development: expertise in nursing theory, theoretical development, conceptual modeling, or the manuscript’s substantive field;
• Case Reports / Case Studies: relevant clinical, nursing-practice, educational, organizational, or professional expertise; and
• Perspectives or Editorials referred for external review: appropriate subject-area, policy, practice, theoretical, or professional expertise.

When a manuscript requires more than one area of expertise, CNJ may appoint reviewers with complementary competencies, such as a subject specialist and a methodological, statistical, theoretical, evidence-synthesis, or clinical expert.

3. Familiarity with Research and Reporting Standards
Reviewers should be familiar with relevant standards of research conduct and manuscript reporting. Depending on the manuscript, this may include the applicable Reporting Guidelines, research-ethics requirements, data-reporting practices, and established methodological or theoretical standards.

Previous peer-review experience is preferred but is not an absolute requirement when the reviewer has appropriate expertise and can perform the review under suitable editorial guidance.

4. Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the authors, institutions, work, and interests associated with the manuscript. A reviewer should not ordinarily be selected when the individual:

• Has the same current institutional affiliation as an author;
• Is currently or was recently involved in research collaboration or co-authorship with an author;
• Has a current or recent supervisory, mentoring, examination, employment, or dependent professional relationship with an author;
• Has a relevant financial, commercial, institutional, personal, academic, professional, or intellectual conflict;
• Has participated in the research, preparation, or substantive prior evaluation of the manuscript;
• Is engaged in direct competition or a significant professional dispute that could reasonably affect impartiality; or
• Has another relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, independent judgment.

No single fixed time period can determine the significance of every previous collaboration or relationship. Reviewers must disclose relevant circumstances, and the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will assess their nature, recency, significance, and potential effect on the integrity or perceived fairness of the review in accordance with CNJ’s Reviewer Conflict of Interest policy.

5. Verification of Reviewer Identity and Expertise
Before or during reviewer appointment, the editorial office may verify:

• The reviewer’s full name and institutional or professional affiliation;
• Institutional email address or another verifiable professional contact, where available;
• ORCID iD and other scholarly profiles, where available;
• Relevant publications, research activity, professional experience, or methodological expertise;
• Consistency between the reviewer’s stated identity, affiliation, expertise, and publicly available scholarly record; and
• Previous review quality, reliability, timeliness, and professional conduct, where applicable.

Use of a non-institutional email address does not automatically disqualify a reviewer, but the editorial office may conduct additional identity verification when necessary. Reviewer invitations must be sent through authorized journal channels.

6. Reviewer Selection and Appointment
For manuscripts requiring external peer review, CNJ assigns a minimum of two qualified independent reviewers in accordance with the Peer Review Policy. Reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when permitted by the journal, but such suggestions are advisory. Editors are not required to invite suggested reviewers and must independently verify their suitability, expertise, identity, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Editorial Board membership does not automatically qualify or disqualify an individual from serving as a reviewer. Editorial Board members may review manuscripts when they possess appropriate expertise, are independent of the authors and work, and comply with the same ethical and confidentiality requirements as other reviewers.

Where reasonably possible, editors may consider diversity of expertise, professional background, institution, geography, career stage, and perspective when selecting reviewers, without compromising the requirements for competence and independence.

7. Continuing Eligibility and Reviewer Performance
Continued inclusion in CNJ’s reviewer database or receipt of future invitations may be informed by:

• Quality, depth, clarity, and constructiveness of previous reviews;
• Appropriateness and consistency of reviewer recommendations;
• Compliance with agreed review deadlines;
• Responsiveness to editorial communication;
• Compliance with confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, ethical, and AI requirements; and
• Absence of substantiated reviewer misconduct or manipulation of the peer-review process.

Inclusion in the reviewer database does not guarantee appointment to review a manuscript. CNJ may suspend or discontinue reviewer invitations when expertise is no longer appropriate, reviews repeatedly fail to meet expected standards, confidentiality or ethical requirements are breached, relevant conflicts are not disclosed, or other conduct undermines the integrity of peer review.

8. Related CNJ Policies
Reviewer selection and appointment must be consistent with CNJ’s Reviewer Guidelines, Reviewer Ethics, Reviewer Conflict of Interest, Reviewer AI Policy, Peer Review Policy, and Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS).