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:

• Does the manuscript's subject and methodology align with your expertise for evaluation? Even if your expertise covers only a portion of the study, accepting the review request is reasonable. Just ensure to specify the components you assessed in your review.
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest? Objective reviews require impartiality, so if any conflicts exist, we kindly request you decline the invitation.
• Are you familiar with the journal's peer-review guidelines?
• Do you have the necessary time to conduct a thorough review? If you require an extension either before or after accepting the review request, please notify us via email regarding the additional time needed.

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:

1. Accept the review invitation by selecting "will do the review," and proceed with sending or skipping the email, which will open automatically.
2. Review the reviewer guidelines provided.
3. Download the manuscript and any supplementary file(s) by clicking on the file names (e.g., JNACS-23-17.DOC).
4. Complete the review form by clicking on its icon and saving it. Please note that the review form becomes accessible after accepting the review request and sending or skipping the automatic email. Changes to the form can be made at any time before completing the process (submitting the review to the editor).
5. Optionally, reviewers wishing to upload additional files may do so.
6. Choose the final recommendation from the drop-down menu and submit the review to the editor by clicking on the "submit a review to editor" button. An automatic email will appear to notify the section editor that you have finished the review. The drop-down menu will activate only after completing and saving the review form.