Guide for Reviewers updated 1 April, 2024

Information for Journal of Nursing Reports in Clinical Practice (JNRCP) reviewers

Thanks for visiting the JNRCP Reviewers page. The resources listed below have been compiled by us to aid and direct you as you review them for us. We value the time and assistance reviewers provide to the peer review process very highly.

Response to our invite

We will include the paper's title, author's name, and abstract in our invitation. Please think about the following before agreeing to review a paper for a JNRCP:

• Are the manuscript's subject and technique within your field of expertise? Are you comfortable evaluating this paper? Please remember that accepting a review request is reasonable even if your area of expertise is only a portion of the study. In these situations, please make clear in your review the study components you evaluated.
• Possible conflicts of interest do you have? Independent reviewers are necessary to produce objective reviews. We ask that you turn down the invitation if you have any conflicts of interest.
• Do you comprehend the journal's peer-review guidelines?
• Do you have the time? If you require a deadline extension before or after agreeing to review, please get in touch with us by responding to our email invitation and letting us know how much time you may need.

We are aware of your hectic schedule and that you might not be able to review it due to other obligations. By declining our invitation, you help us maintain the effectiveness of the manuscript evaluation process and notify us that we need to get in touch with different reviewers. If you choose not to accept our invitation, we would appreciate any recommendations you have for professionals we may use as substitute reviewers.

Reviewing a JNRCP manuscript

All scientific and clinical disciplines are represented in the high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed JNRCP, which focuses on the requirements of the research communities it serves. The editorial decisions for the subject-specific journals in the JNRCP are not based on how interesting a study is or how much of an impact it is anticipated to have. Studies must be technically sound, scientifically sound, and innovative contributions to the body of knowledge.

We ask reviewers to give our Editors the details they need to make an informed choice about a manuscript and to offer advice to writers on how to improve their work to the point where it might be suitable for publishing.

The methods used must be appropriate and carried out correctly, and the results reached must have complete data backing. Reviewers are requested to refrain from evaluating a paper's significance or importance because the research community will do so after it has been published. The evaluation should take into account the following queries:

• Is the paper sound technical?
• Are the experimental results sufficient to substantiate the claims? What additional evidence is required if not?
• Is the data's statistical analysis accurate?
• Does the data's accessibility meet the requirements of your research community?
• Are the assertions properly analyzed in light of earlier literature?
• Could the manuscript be changed to take into account any probable flaws?

Please see the Guide for Authors on the journal's website for further details on the many article categories it accepts.

Preparing your report

Reviews must be filed on our submission system by filling out our structured report. Starting your report with a concise review of the manuscript and your overall assessment of the work, including both merits and flaws, may be helpful. You should next offer further in-depth comments on the paper taking into account the philosophy of the JNRCP, requirements for this article category, and your professional evaluation. Explaining your suggestions will aid the authors in comprehending your thinking and enhancing their work before publishing. Organizing your feedback into significant concerns (changes you believe are necessary) and minor issues (changes that might be optional or where minor elaborations or extra information would be required) can be useful.

If you do suggest that the manuscript be rejected, be sure to explain why (for instance, that there is no valid research question, that the methodology is flawed, or that the results are not properly interpreted); this will help the authors understand your recommendation and any changes they may need to make to this and future manuscripts.

You can also give the editor separate comments, such as any ethical concerns or other matters you think they should be aware of, or if there are any aspects of the manuscript you were unable to evaluate. Please make this suggestion in the Confidential Comments to the Editor if you believe the manuscript might benefit from language editing because the meaning is being buried by grammatical errors.

Please take some time to go through your report and put yourself in the writer's position before submitting it. If you were given this report, how would you feel? Do you think the tone is respectful and appropriate?

Editorial decision

Before making a judgment, the Editor will consider your report, the comments of the other reviewer(s), and the manuscript. The editor might ask the editorial board of the journal or another reviewer or judge for additional input, and they might get in touch with you for more clarification on your report. Please remember that the Editor will consider a variety of criteria before making a choice, and they might not ultimately accept your suggestion. This doesn't mean that your input wasn't considered; it just means that there were other issues brought up that significantly impacted the choice.

Revised manuscript

We may get in touch with you again to review the updated manuscript if the Editor decides to ask the authors to make changes, to make sure you are pleased with the Editor's response to your concerns and the modifications made to the manuscript. You can address any unresolved issues with the adjustments made to the writers, but please remember that your comments should be consistent across all rounds of review. You may suggest acceptance if you think the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

After review

We value the time and assistance reviewers provide to the peer review process very highly. Reviewers are crucial to the research process because they invest their time in reading other people's work, contribute their knowledge to evaluate manuscripts and raise the standard of publications that are published. Reviewers improve science and aid in the development of the scientific community. Finally, we will send a certificate to the reviewer for recognition of the review contributed to this journal.

Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers

• Reviewers should assess the originality, scientific merit, and design of the study including statistical analysis, professional interest and the overall quality of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
• Reviewers should provide constructive comments to improve the quality of the article.
• Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the research funders.
• All reviews should be performed confidentially.

A summary of how to review for reviewers

After receiving a review request Email and going to the submission URL provided in it, 6 easy review steps should be followed:

1. Accepting the review invitation by clicking on "will do the review" and sending or skipping the Email, which will open automatically.
2. Reading this reviewer guideline.
3. Downloading the manuscript and its supplementary file(s) by clicking on file names (e.g. JNRCP-23-17.DOC).
4. Filling the review form by clicking on its icon and saving it. Please note that the review form is only activated once you accept the review request and send or skip its automatic Email. You may make changes to the form at any time before completing the steps (submitting the review to the editor).
5. This is an optional step for reviewers who wish to upload one or more files in addition to the review form.
6. Selecting the final recommendation from the drop down menu and submit it to the editor by clicking on "submit review to editor" button and sending the email that appears automatically to notify the section editor that you have completed the review. Please note that the drop down menu will be activated only when you complete and save the review form.

Editorial Office Contact Details
Please contact JNRCP Editorial Office: jnrcp2023@gmail.com