Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific rigor, ethical integrity, and overall publication quality of the Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ). These guidelines provide operational instructions for conducting fair, independent, constructive, and article-type-appropriate reviews. The governance and review routes applicable to each article type are described in CNJ’s Peer Review Policy. Reviewers must also follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and relevant principles of the ICMJE Recommendations.

1. Before Accepting a Review
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should:

• Confirm that the manuscript falls within their subject, methodological, theoretical, or professional expertise;
• Ensure that they can complete the review within the requested timeframe;
• Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest to the editor;
• Decline the invitation when appropriate expertise, independence, or sufficient time cannot be assured;
• Notify the editor promptly if a relevant conflict of interest becomes apparent after accepting the assignment;
• Not transfer the invitation or involve another person in the review without prior permission from the editor; and
• Not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript undergoing double-blind peer review.

2. Scope of Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to its article type, study design, objectives, and scholarly claims. Evaluation should consider, where applicable:

• Originality, significance, and contribution to nursing science, practice, education, healthcare, or health systems;
• Relevance to CNJ’s scope and intended readership;
• Clarity and appropriateness of the research question, objectives, or scholarly purpose;
• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology or scholarly approach;
• Adequacy and transparency of data collection, analysis, synthesis, or conceptual reasoning;
• Consistency between the evidence presented, interpretation, conclusions, and claims;
• Ethical approval, informed consent, consent for publication, confidentiality, and participant protection, where applicable;
• Compliance with the relevant Reporting Guidelines;
• Appropriate acknowledgment of limitations, uncertainty, and potential sources of bias;
• Relevance and accuracy of tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials; and
• Overall clarity, coherence, and readability.

Reviewers should apply criteria appropriate to the manuscript’s design. Quantitative criteria must not be imposed inappropriately on qualitative research, and qualitative criteria must not be applied inappropriately to quantitative research.

3. Evaluation According to Article Type
In addition to the general criteria above, reviewers should consider the following:

• Original Research Articles: assess the appropriateness of the design, sampling, data collection, analysis, results or findings, interpretation, ethical compliance, and consistency between the evidence and conclusions.
• Review Articles: assess the clarity of the review question, appropriateness and transparency of the search, eligibility criteria, study selection, critical appraisal where applicable, synthesis methods, and conclusions. Rapid reviews must transparently identify and justify any abbreviated or modified review methods.
• Concept Analysis: assess the clarity of the selected concept, appropriateness and transparency of the analytical approach, use of relevant literature, identification of attributes or characteristics, logical coherence, and contribution to nursing knowledge.
• Theory Development: assess the transparency and rigor of the theoretical-development approach, clarity of concepts and relationships, internal consistency, grounding in relevant evidence or scholarship, applicability, and contribution to nursing knowledge.
• Case Reports / Case Studies: assess the importance and clarity of the case, clinical or professional relevance, completeness of reporting, protection of confidentiality, consent for publication, and compliance with the CARE guideline where applicable. Empirical research case studies involving systematic data collection and analysis should be evaluated as Original Research Articles.
• Perspectives and Editorials referred for external review: assess the clarity, balance, evidentiary basis, scholarly reasoning, relevance, and contribution of the argument. An IMRaD structure should not be required unless appropriate to the manuscript.

The absence of empirical data is not a methodological deficiency when a manuscript is appropriately classified as Concept Analysis or Theory Development. However, claims of empirical testing or validation must be supported by appropriate empirical evidence.

4. Preparing the Reviewer Report
Reviewer reports should be objective, evidence-informed, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently specific to help authors improve their manuscript and to support editorial decision-making. Reviewers should:

• Provide a brief overall assessment of the manuscript;
• Identify major scientific, methodological, conceptual, ethical, or reporting concerns;
• Separate major comments from minor comments where practical;
• Explain the reasoning supporting each substantive comment;
• Refer to relevant evidence, standards, or reporting guidance where necessary;
• Distinguish revisions required to address substantive concerns from optional suggestions intended primarily to improve presentation;
• Avoid vague, dismissive, abusive, discriminatory, or personally critical language;
• Avoid rewriting the manuscript according to personal stylistic preferences;
• Not request unnecessary citations, including citations intended primarily to increase the reviewer’s or another person’s citation count; and
• Ensure that comments and recommendations are consistent with the issues identified in the review.

Confidential comments to the editor should be used for sensitive ethical, integrity, conflict-of-interest, or editorial concerns. They should not contain substantive scientific criticisms that are withheld from the authors unless confidentiality or the appropriate handling of a suspected integrity concern requires otherwise.

5. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewer recommendations may include:

• Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision;
• Minor Revision: limited revisions are required and do not substantially affect the study design, central analysis, or principal conclusions;
• Major Revision: substantial but potentially addressable scientific, methodological, conceptual, ethical, or reporting concerns remain; or
• Reject: fundamental problems substantially undermine the validity, integrity, relevance, or scholarly contribution of the manuscript and cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

Recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final editorial decision. Final responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. Reviewers should record their recommendation in the designated OJS field and avoid presenting it as the journal’s final decision.

6. Revised Manuscripts and Timeliness
When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should:

• Assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous reviewer and editorial comments;
• Evaluate the revised manuscript and the authors’ point-by-point response;
• Avoid introducing unrelated new requirements unless a new issue arises from the revision or was reasonably overlooked during the previous review; and
• Clearly explain any concerns that remain unresolved.

Reviews must be submitted within the agreed timeframe. Reviewers who require an extension or are unable to complete the assignment should notify the editor promptly so that unnecessary delays can be avoided.

7. Confidentiality, Ethical Concerns, Conflicts of Interest, and AI
All manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential scholarly communications. Reviewers must not share, discuss, retain for unauthorized purposes, or use unpublished material for personal, academic, professional, or financial advantage.

If reviewers identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate data or image manipulation, authorship irregularities, ethical non-compliance, citation manipulation, or another research-integrity concern, they should report it confidentially to the editor. Reviewers should not investigate the matter independently, contact the authors directly, or make an allegation of misconduct in comments intended for the authors.

Detailed requirements are provided in CNJ’s Reviewer Ethics, Reviewer Conflict of Interest, and Reviewer AI Policy. Reviewers must also comply with CNJ’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS) and Ethical Consideration.