Information for Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences reviewers
Thank you for visiting the Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences Reviewers page. We have assembled the following resources to support and guide you through the review process. We deeply appreciate the valuable time and assistance reviewers contribute to our peer review process.
Response to our invite
Before accepting a review request from Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences, please consider the following points:
We understand your busy schedule, and if you're unable to review due to other commitments, declining our invitation helps us maintain the effectiveness of the manuscript evaluation process. Moreover, if you decline, we appreciate any recommendations you might have for suitable alternative reviewers.
Reviewing a Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences manuscript
Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal that encompasses diverse scientific and clinical disciplines, catering to the needs of respective research communities. Editorial decisions for subject-specific journals within Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences prioritize technical and scientific rigor over anticipated impact or interest level. Manuscripts are expected to be technically and scientifically sound, contributing innovative knowledge to the field.
Reviewers are urged to provide Editors with comprehensive insights enabling informed decisions on manuscripts. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive feedback to authors, guiding them in improving their work to meet publication standards.
The assessment criteria for manuscripts encompass technical soundness, adequacy of experimental results with complete data support, accuracy in statistical analysis, data accessibility for the research community, meticulous analysis of assertions concerning prior literature, and suggestions for potential manuscript enhancements to address any identified flaws.
For further details on acceptable article categories, please refer to the Guide for Authors available on the journal's website.
Preparing your report
When submitting a review on our system, please utilize the structured report provided. Begin with a concise review of the manuscript, sharing your overall assessment, and highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. Next, provide detailed comments aligned with Journal of Nursing Advances in Clinical Sciences’ philosophy, specific article category requirements, and your professional evaluation. Elucidate your suggestions to assist authors in comprehending your perspective and improving their work before publication. Organizing feedback into major concerns (essential changes) and minor issues (optional changes or areas needing clarification) can facilitate clarity.
If recommending rejection, clarify the reasons (e.g., lack of a valid research question, flawed methodology, misinterpreted results) to aid authors in understanding your decision and guiding improvements for this and future manuscripts.
In addition to the main review, you can provide the editor with separate comments, such as ethical concerns or any aspects you were unable to evaluate. If language editing is required to enhance clarity due to grammatical errors, suggest this in the Confidential Comments to the Editor.
Before submission, consider reviewing your report from the author's perspective. Assess the tone for its appropriateness and respectfulness. Ensure the feedback provided is constructive and conducive to fostering improvement.
Editorial decision
The Editor will assess your report, along with comments from other reviewers and the manuscript, before reaching a decision. Additional input may be sought from the journal's editorial board or another reviewer. There's a possibility of the Editor seeking clarification from you regarding your report. It's essential to understand that the Editor considers multiple criteria before making a decision, and your recommendation may not be the outcome. This doesn't diminish the value of your input; rather, it implies that other factors significantly influence the decision-making process.
Revised manuscript
If the Editor requests revisions from the authors and an updated manuscript is submitted, we might reach out to you for a review of the revised version. This ensures your satisfaction with the Editor's response to your concerns and the changes made to the manuscript. You're encouraged to address any remaining issues with the modifications directly to the authors. However, it's important to maintain consistency in your comments across all review rounds. If you believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication, you may recommend acceptance.
After review
We highly appreciate the invaluable time and support that reviewers dedicate to the peer review process. Reviewers play a vital role in research by investing their time in reviewing others' work, leveraging their expertise to evaluate manuscripts, and elevating the quality of published articles. Their contributions enhance scientific advancement and foster the growth of the scientific community. As a token of appreciation, we will issue a certificate to acknowledge the reviewer's valuable contribution to this journal's review process.
A summary of how to review for reviewers
Upon receiving a review request email and accessing the submission URL provided, follow these six simple steps for the review process: