Peer Review Process and Policy

1. Peer Review Process

The entire editorial workflow is performed through email using [email protected]. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the editorial board should undergo an initial screening process to weed out papers that are unsuitable or have a different focus that is marginal and weak.

This journal follows a double-blind peer-review procedure. To ensure this, authors should anonymize elements within the manuscripts that can reveal their identities, such as authors’ names, institutional affiliations, contact information, and references to their works.

The reviewers’ assignment is based on their areas of expertise. The reviewers’ expertise must align with the substance of the manuscript. The present workload and availability of the reviewer are also considered.

Reviewers are given evaluation criteria and asked to provide anonymous comments to the author(s). They may also provide confidential feedback to the Editor(s)-in chief. Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:

  • Originality and significance of contribution. Is the manuscript congruent with the mission of the journal?
  • Interest to the research community and practitioners. How useful is the material to the field?
  • Applicability. Does the manuscript have international relevance?
  • Coverage of existing literature. Does the literature review contain supporting relevant information?
  • Use of appropriate study design, including methodology and analysis. Does the manuscript contain a detailed explanation of research methods and procedures?
  • Clear, concise, and jargon-free writing. Does the manuscript clearly state the issue(s) being addressed?
  • Organizational structure. Is the manuscript clearly and logically organized? Does the research support the author’s conclusions?

Based on the submitted reports, the Reviewers make one of the following recommendations:

  • Reject
  • Major Changes
  • Minor Changes
  • Accepted

Once all reviews have been received, the Editor(s)-in-chief will determine whether the manuscript is Accepted, requires Revision, or is Rejected.

If the manuscript is “Rejected,” the author(s) are sent any review reports received and notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal.

If the manuscript “Requires Revision,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers. This might require collecting new data or substantial revision of the text. The manuscript is then reassessed by one or more original reviewers before the Editor(s)-in-chief makes (s) a new recommendation.

If the manuscript is “Accepted,” the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal’s editorial office to ensure the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance and provided with the formatting guidelines for final submission.

The entire review process will typically take place within 12 weeks. Should the reviewers’ comments contradict one another or a report is delayed, an additional expert review will be sought. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers for re-evaluation if necessary. The Editor(s)-in-chief may require more than one revision of a manuscript, and additional reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.

2. Editor(s)-in-Chief Responsibilities

  • Organizing and maintaining an Editorial Board (minimum of 20+ Editorial Review Board Members representing researchers from international institutions).
  • Recruiting quality research manuscript submissions for the journal.
  • Utilizing a minimum of three Editorial Review Board Members to conduct a double-blind peer review of each manuscript.

Collecting and organizing final materials for each issue, ensuring that every manuscript submission adheres to the formatting and submission guidelines of the journal.

3. Journal Review Policy

  • Authors should refrain from concurrently submitting manuscripts describing essentially the same research. Submitting the same paper to multiple journals is unacceptable and unethical.
  • All submitted and invited papers will undergo an initial screening process by the Editor(s)-in-chief to remove marginal, weak, and unsuitable papers. The papers that pass the initial screening process will be sent to three experts who are Editorial Review Board Members for review.
  • Editor(s)-in-Chief will be able to seek additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when the Editor(s)-in-chief requires (s) further review.
  • All publication decisions are made by the journal’s Editor(s)-in-chief based on the referees’ reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
  • To maintain confidentiality, all editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editors, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Editors will require reviewers to disclose competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
  • Editors will guide reviewers on everything expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material confidently.
  • Suppose a reviewer cannot review the research reported in a manuscript within the designated guidelines or within the time stipulated. In that case, the reviewer should notify the Editor(s)-in-chief to ensure an accurate and timely review.
  • The peer-review process is confidential, and the reviewers’ identities cannot be revealed.

4. Special Cases

Editors are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript. An alternate Editor will oversee the review process and publication decision in such cases.

Guest Editors of Special Issues are excluded from the review process and publication decisions when they are authors or contributors to a manuscript. In such cases, one of the journal editors will oversee the review process and publication decision.

5. Communications with Authors

At each stage of the review process, authors will be provided with reasoned and constructive feedback about the decisions on their manuscript.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should inform the Editors of any potential conflicts with the assigned manuscript, for instance, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with authors, companies, or institutions. In such instances, they should inform the editors and recuse themselves from the review process.

7. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process is protected.

8. Appeals

Appeals against editorial decisions require a formal appeal letter with point-by-point evidence supporting the appeal. In line with generally accepted standards, appeals are considered only based on (i) reviewers’ potential technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript, (ii) new information or data that has come to light since the submission of a manuscript, and (iii) evidence as to potential conflicts of interest of reviewers. Appeals against an editorial decision must be submitted within 14 days of the decision notice.

One appeal per manuscript is allowed. The Editor-in-Chief will consult the editorial team and, where appropriate, seek further advice from members of the Editorial Board. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.

Appeal letters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and submitted to the editorial office: [email protected].

9. Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global knowledge exchange.

Upon publication, the article shall be openly licensed using the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

10. Digital Preservation Policy

The International Journal of Advanced Nursing Education and Research (IJANER) undertakes to ensure the long-term preservation and accessibility of online resources for research papers. Its role is to provide access, preserve, and keep digital collections available while maintaining the essential functionality of the original digital object.