Double-Blind Review

The Celebes Nursing Journal employs a double-blind review method. The identities of the authors and reviewers (including email addresses, institutions or affiliations, city, and country) will be kept confidential throughout the review process. Each manuscript submitted by the authors will be reviewed by two reviewers.

The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the editorial board or editor in chief, as outlined in the Peer Review Process section.

Ethical Guidelines

Peer Reviewers for the Celebes Nursing Journal must adhere to and follow the ethical standards and policies established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

1. Overall Comments
   • Is the article original, demonstrating novelty or a new contribution, and does it have significant importance for the advancement of the field?
   • Does the article have an appropriate writing structure according to the Celebes Nursing Journal Author Guidelines and good language aspects?
2. Abstract
   • Does the abstract contain a complete summary (purpose, methods, key findings/results, and conclusion)?
   • Is the word count in accordance with the requirements of the Celebes Nursing Journal?
3. Introduction
   • Is the introduction written effectively, clearly, and well-organized?
   • Does the introduction contain a sufficient state-of-the-art overview of previous research and cite correctly and appropriately?
   • Does the introduction include a clear gap analysis to show the new contribution and differentiate it from previous studies?
   • Does the introduction contain a clear and specific research objective?
4. Research Methods
   • Can the experimental procedures described by the authors be reproduced by other researchers and yield the same results?
   • Do the authors provide correct references if the experimental procedures refer to previous papers?
   • Is the methodology description clear and comprehensive?
   • Should the authors include other materials to support the research data?
5. Results and Discussion
   • Provide suggestions for improvement based on the data presented by the authors. Do the research data and discussions have a logical relationship that leads to the conclusion?
   • Are tables, figures, and diagrams presented clearly, legibly, correctly, and with good resolution?
   • Write comments and suggestions for manuscript improvements succinctly, clearly, and accurately. Detailed suggestions for style, grammar, and other minor changes (if any) should be noted carefully. Are additional experimental data or analyses needed?
   • Is there a comparison between the results of this research and previous studies, especially those mentioned in the introduction?
   • Sometimes in certain journals, results and discussions are separated into different sections; if so, care should be taken to avoid repetitive statements.
6. Conclusion
   • Is the conclusion drawn by the authors valid, important, and does it address the research objectives?
   • Is the conclusion claimed by the authors supported by sufficient research data and analysis?
   • Are there any statements or conclusions that are repetitive or redundant?
   • It is important to note that the conclusion is very different from the abstract.
7. References
   • Are all citations in the text of the article listed in the reference section, and vice versa, are those in the reference section cited in the text?
   • Is the reference list correctly and consistently formatted according to the standards set by the Celebes Nursing Journal, specifically APA 7th Style?

Additional Notes for Peer Reviewers

1. Layout issues are minor; therefore, peer reviewers are advised not to focus excessively on the article's layout.
2. A good review provides balanced criticism of both the positive and negative aspects of a manuscript.
3. Provide an impression of the overall quality of the work and its strengths, and indicate any major shortcomings or weaknesses of each manuscript reviewed.
4. Reviewers should not request authors or direct them to cite the reviewer's own articles.