Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Keperawatan Klinis dan Komunitas (Clinical and Community Nursing Journal) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, fairness, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous and ethical peer-review process.

Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the originality, scientific validity, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts to the advancement of nursing knowledge and practice.

These guidelines are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and relevant publication ethics principles. They are intended to promote responsible, objective, constructive, and accountable reviewing practices.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, constructive, evidence-based, and impartial assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations should assist editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality, clarity, and relevance of their work.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within their areas of expertise and consider their relevance to the journal's focus and scope, including clinical nursing, community nursing, nursing education, nursing management, medical-surgical nursing, emergency nursing, maternity nursing, pediatric nursing, mental health nursing, and other relevant areas of nursing research and practice.
Reviewers should assess whether a manuscript contributes meaningfully to nursing science, clinical practice, community health, patient safety, health promotion, nursing education, healthcare management, or evidence-based nursing care.

2. Pre-Review Considerations

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully consider the following aspects.
Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their areas of expertise. If a manuscript addresses topics or methodologies outside their expertise, reviewers should notify the editor as soon as possible and, where appropriate, recommend an alternative reviewer with suitable qualifications.
Reviewers should ensure that they have sufficient time to complete the review thoroughly and objectively. The review must be completed within two weeks (14 days) of accepting the invitation.
If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editor as soon as possible and request an extension. If they are unable to complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe, they should notify the editor promptly and may recommend a suitable replacement reviewer.
Reviewers should consider whether any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest could affect their impartiality.
The existence of a conflict of interest does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as a reviewer. However, all relevant conflicts must be disclosed to the editor before the review begins. The editor will determine whether the reviewer may proceed or whether an alternative reviewer should be appointed.
Reviewers who are uncertain about a potential conflict of interest should contact the editorial office for clarification before proceeding.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
Reviewers will receive manuscripts with author-identifying information removed, where applicable. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or seek information intended to reveal their identities.
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts, evaluation reports, and related correspondence. They must not disclose their participation in reviewing a particular manuscript or discuss its contents with unauthorized individuals.
Reviewer comments and recommendations must be based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to clinical and community nursing.
If a reviewer becomes aware of the authors' identities or discovers circumstances that could compromise impartiality, they should promptly notify the editor.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or share manuscript contents, unpublished findings, supplementary materials, or review correspondence with unauthorized individuals without prior permission from the journal.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal, professional, financial, or competitive advantage. They must not exploit confidential information to disadvantage authors or other researchers.
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to external artificial intelligence (AI) services or other third-party platforms when doing so could disclose confidential information or violate the journal's policies.
Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's applicable policies and protect manuscript confidentiality, author rights, and research integrity. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, independence, and integrity of their assessments.

5. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews must be objective, fair, respectful, and supported by clear academic reasoning. Reviewers should evaluate the scientific quality of the research rather than the authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, religion, political views, or other irrelevant considerations.
Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.
Reviewers should provide specific, constructive, and actionable comments that help authors improve their manuscripts. They should distinguish major concerns affecting the validity, reliability, ethical acceptability, or scientific contribution of a study from minor issues involving presentation, terminology, formatting, and language.
Where appropriate, reviewers should explain their concerns regarding research design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, clinical implications, and applicability to nursing practice.

6. Assessment Criteria

When reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal, reviewers should consider the following criteria in accordance with the journal's Focus and Scope and Author Guidelines.
The assessment may include the following criteria:

a. Originality and Scientific Contribution: The manuscript presents interesting and original content and makes a meaningful contribution to the advancement of nursing knowledge, particularly in clinical and community nursing.

b. Title: The article title is clear, informative, engaging, and consistent with the content and objectives of the manuscript.

c. Abstract: The abstract accurately summarizes the background, objectives, research methods, main findings, and conclusions of the study.

d. Introduction: The introduction clearly establishes the research background, urgency, problem statement, research gap, and objectives, supported by relevant scientific literature.

e. Research Methods: The research design and methodology are appropriate for the study objectives and are described in sufficient detail to support scientific rigor and reproducibility.

  • Population and Sample: The study population, sample characteristics, sample size, and sampling techniques are clearly described and appropriate to the research design.

  • Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for research participants are clearly defined and justified, where applicable.

  • Research Instruments: The instruments used for data collection are appropriate to the study objectives, with relevant evidence of validity and reliability reported where applicable.

  • Data Analysis: The data analysis methods are appropriate for the research design, study objectives, and type of data, and are applied and reported accurately.

  • Research Ethics: The manuscript adequately reports ethical approval or ethical clearance, informed consent procedures, and measures to protect participant privacy and confidentiality, as applicable to the study.

  • Case Study Introduction (Case Study Research): The introduction clearly describes the uniqueness, clinical significance, and rationale for selecting the case, as well as the objectives of the case study.

  • Case Study Methodology (Case Study Research): The methodology is clearly and comprehensively described, including the approach to case selection, data collection, patient assessment, and documentation of nursing care, as applicable.

  • Patient-Specific Information (Case Study Research): Relevant patient characteristics and clinical background are clearly presented, including demographic information, medical history, presenting complaints, relevant diagnoses, and other information necessary to understand the case, while maintaining patient privacy and confidentiality.

  • Article Selection Process (Literature Review Research):  The article selection process is clearly described, including the screening stages, eligibility criteria, and reasons for exclusion where applicable.

  • Critical Appraisal Process (Literature Review Research):  The critical appraisal process is adequately described, including the appraisal tools or criteria used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies, as applicable.

  • PRISMA Flow Diagram (Literature Review Research):  For systematic reviews that follow PRISMA, the flow diagram clearly illustrates the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and final inclusion of studies, with consistent and accurate numbers at each stage.

  • Data Extraction Table (Literature Review Research): The data extraction table is clearly presented and contains relevant information from the included studies, such as authors, publication year, study objectives, design, sample or participants, methods, and principal findings, as appropriate to the review objectives.

f. Results: The research findings are presented clearly, logically, and systematically, with appropriate supporting tables, figures, and statistical analyses where necessary.

  • Nursing Care Plan and Therapeutic Interventions (Case Study Research): The nursing care plan and therapeutic interventions are clearly described, including nursing diagnoses, planned interventions, implementation, and evaluation of care, where applicable.

  • Clinical Manifestations and Findings (Case Study Research): The patient's clinical manifestations and relevant findings are clearly described, including signs and symptoms, physical examination findings, assessment results, diagnostic investigations, and changes in clinical condition, as applicable.

  • Patient Outcomes and Follow-up (Case Study Research): The patient's response to nursing interventions, clinical progress, outcomes of care, and follow-up findings are adequately reported, where applicable.

  • Literature Search Process (Literature Review Research):  The literature search process is clearly and comprehensively described, including the databases or sources searched, search strategies, keywords, Boolean operators where applicable, and search period.

  • Results Synthesis (Literature Review Research): The synthesis of findings is clearly and logically narrated, consistent with the review objectives, and supported by the extracted evidence. Similarities, differences, patterns, and gaps across the included studies are appropriately identified and discussed.

  • Relevance and Quality of Included Studies (Literature Review Research): The included studies are relevant to the review question and meet the stated eligibility criteria. Their methodological quality and limitations are appropriately considered when interpreting the findings.

g. Discussion: The discussion provides a comprehensive interpretation of the findings, relates them to relevant previous studies, and explains their theoretical, clinical, educational, managerial, or community health implications.

  • Discussion of the Case (Case Study Research): The discussion critically interprets the case findings in relation to relevant scientific literature, explains the clinical significance and uniqueness of the case, and identifies implications for nursing practice.

h. Conclusion and Clinical Implications: The conclusion directly addresses the research objectives, is supported by the findings, and reflects the significance and implications of the study without unsupported claims.

i. References: The references are relevant, accurate, sufficiently current, and presented consistently with the journal's referencing guidelines.

j. Language and Presentation: The manuscript uses clear, accurate, and appropriate academic language, with correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, terminology, and formatting in accordance with the journal's requirements.

k. Overall Scientific Quality and Relevance: The manuscript demonstrates adequate scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance to the scope of the Clinical and Community Nursing Journal, with a meaningful contribution to nursing science and practice.

Reviewers should also report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, breaches of research ethics, or other potential misconduct confidentially to the editor.

7. Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment. Competing interests may be financial, personal, professional, institutional, intellectual, or collaborative.
Examples include recent or ongoing research collaborations with the authors, supervisory relationships, close personal relationships, employment at the same institution, shared funding, or direct academic or commercial competition.
Reviewers should not accept or continue a review if a relevant conflict prevents them from providing an independent assessment. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the invitation, the reviewer must inform the editor promptly and follow the editor's guidance.

8. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should remain alert to possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, undisclosed competing interests, and other concerns affecting research integrity.
Particular attention should be given to ethical issues relevant to nursing and healthcare research, including inadequate informed consent, insufficient protection of vulnerable populations, breaches of patient confidentiality, questionable ethical approval, and potential risks to patients or research participants.
Any concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor, with specific explanations and supporting evidence where available. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations beyond their reviewing responsibilities or make unsupported accusations against authors.
The editor will assess the concerns and determine whether further clarification, investigation, or action is required in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

9. Use of References and Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript's research question, methodology, interpretation, or scholarly context.
Recommendations should improve the accuracy, completeness, and scientific quality of the manuscript rather than serve the reviewer's personal interests or artificially increase citations to the reviewer, their colleagues, or a particular journal.
Reviewers should explain the academic rationale for substantial reference recommendations. Authors should not be pressured to cite publications that are irrelevant to their research.

10. Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within two weeks (14 days) of accepting the review invitation.
If additional time is required, reviewers should notify the editor as early as possible and request an extension. If they are unable to complete the review, they should inform the editor promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Reviewers should not unnecessarily delay the review process or withhold their recommendations without reasonable justification.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation supported by their assessment and comments. Recommendations should reflect the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance to nursing, ethical acceptability, and compliance with the journal's requirements.
The following recommendations may be used in the journal's review workflow:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited corrections or clarifications.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements and further evaluation before a publication decision can be made.

  • Reject: The manuscript has fundamental limitations, insufficient scientific contribution, significant methodological weaknesses, serious ethical concerns, or other problems that make it unsuitable for publication.

Reviewers should provide clear explanations supporting their recommendations. They must not guarantee publication or present their recommendations as final editorial decisions. The final decision rests with the authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers' reports and the journal's editorial policies.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Accountability

Jurnal Keperawatan Klinis dan Komunitas values the time, expertise, and scholarly contributions of its reviewers. The journal may provide appropriate recognition of reviewer contributions, subject to reviewer consent, confidentiality requirements, and applicable journal policies.
Reviewer recognition must not compromise the confidentiality of individual manuscripts or disclose reviewer identities in a manner inconsistent with the journal's double-blind peer-review system.
Reviewers are accountable for the quality, fairness, confidentiality, and ethical integrity of their assessments. Any concerns regarding the review process should be communicated to the editorial office through the journal's official contact channels.

13. Compliance with Publication Ethics Principles

The journal encourages reviewers to follow internationally recognized publication ethics standards, including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and relevant COPE Core Practices.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers are expected to comply with these guidelines, disclose relevant competing interests, safeguard confidential materials, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and communicate professionally with the editorial office.
Reviewers should contact the editorial office if they have questions about their responsibilities, research ethics, confidentiality, competing interests, or suspected publication misconduct.
Through these guidelines, the journal seeks to maintain a fair, transparent, rigorous, and ethical peer-review process that supports the advancement of nursing knowledge and the improvement of clinical and community healthcare practice.