REVIEW PROCESS

1  Peer review model

NurseLine Journal (NLJ) uses double-blind, also known as double-anonymous, peer review. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors during review. Editors retain access to both identities to administer submissions and assess competing interests. Each manuscript passing initial editorial screening is assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Assessment is based on scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and contributions to nursing knowledge and practice. Decisions are not determined by authors’ institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, or academic position.

2  Anonymising manuscripts

Authors submit a separate title page containing their names, affiliations, ORCID identifiers where available, and corresponding author contact details. The review manuscript must not disclose author identities in its text, filename, document properties, comments, or tracked changes. References to the authors’ own publications should use normal scholarly citation without wording that reveals authorship.

Identifying details in ethics statements, funding information, acknowledgements, or study locations may be masked in the review copy when necessary. Full information must remain available to editors, and information needed to assess methods and ethics must be retained. Editors check the anonymity of review files and reviewer reports before sharing them. Reviewers who recognise or suspect an author’s identity must inform the editor so that possible bias can be assessed.

3  Initial editorial screening

Editors assess the journal’s focus and scope, author guidelines, file completeness, originality, preliminary methodological quality, and relevant ethics and participant consent statements. Similarity screening follows NLJ’s current plagiarism policy; scores are interpreted alongside the context and sources of matching material.

Submissions with administrative deficiencies may be returned for correction. Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope, with fundamental scientific weaknesses, or failing applicable ethical requirements may be declined before external review. Authors are informed of the reasons for this decision.

4  Selection of reviewers

The editor or section editor selects at least two reviewers according to subject expertise, relevant research or publication experience, independence, and availability. Reviewers disclose competing interests and decline assignments when personal relationships, collaboration, affiliation, financial interests, or academic competition could compromise impartiality. Unavailable reviewers or those lacking appropriate expertise are replaced. Suggestions made by authors do not bind the editor.

5  Assessment criteria

Using NLJ’s reviewer assessment form, reviewers assess relevance and novelty; clarity of objectives; appropriateness of design, sampling, instruments, and analysis; reporting and interpretation of findings; ethical compliance; support for conclusions; limitations; accuracy and currency of references; language clarity; and contribution to nursing. Criteria are applied according to article type. Comments must be specific, objective, respectful, and constructive. Suspected misconduct is reported confidentially to the editor rather than independently investigated by reviewers.

6  Confidentiality and AI use

Manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not contact authors directly, share materials without permission, or use unpublished information for personal benefit. Assistance from another person requires the editor’s permission and equivalent confidentiality obligations.

AI use is governed by NLJ’s AI policy. Reviewers must obtain prior editorial authorisation and disclose the tool and purpose. Confidential materials must not be uploaded to external AI services where confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property protection cannot be assured. Scientific assessment and editorial decisions remain human responsibilities.

7  Editorial decisions

Editors consider the substance and reasoning of reviewer reports, authors’ responses, and manuscript quality; decisions are not based solely on a vote count. Where reports differ substantially or are insufficient, the editor may request clarification or invite additional reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the final decision.

Decisions may be acceptance; minor revision; major revision and further review; or rejection. Neither a minor nor a major revision decision constitutes acceptance. Acceptance is issued only after scientific and editorial requirements are met. Authors receive the decision, reasons, and relevant comments without reviewer identities.

8  Revision and further review

Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to every comment, identifying changes or providing a scientific explanation when a suggestion is not followed. Files intended for further review remain anonymised. Editors assess minor revisions and may return major revisions to the original reviewers or invite additional reviewers. Further rounds may be required. Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, author proof checking, and publication.

9  Review timeframe

The estimated reviewer assessment period is 1–2 weeks after reviewers accept the assignment and receive complete review files. This estimate does not guarantee the time to the first editorial decision or publication. Overall processing time depends on reviewer recruitment, manuscript complexity, author revisions, and the number of review rounds. Revision deadlines are specified in decision letters; authors may request an extension before the deadline.

10  Editorial independence and appeals

Submissions involving an editor or editorial board member are handled by a different editor without a competing interest and undergo the same review standards. The author-editor does not participate in reviewer selection or decisions on that submission.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal to nurseline@journal.unej.ac.id, identifying the manuscript and providing supporting evidence. An editor without a competing interest assesses the appeal and may obtain independent advice. The outcome is communicated with reasons. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance.