Child Health Nursing Research has a double-blind peer-review system to improve the quality of manuscripts. Reviewers have the professional responsibility to assist authors in improving their manuscript by giving expert advice to them in the peer-review process. Reviewers also contribute to editorial decisions. When reviewers are asked to review a manuscript, they should keep the information about the manuscript confidential. Reviewers should not use ideas expressed in the manuscript for their own research without the authors’ consent, and should not contact the authors personally without permission from the editor. Reviewers should review the manuscript objectively and appropriately without any bias or personal interest. If reviewers have a conflict of interest when reviewing the manuscript, they should consult with the editor. Reviewers are required to respond to the invitation to review the manuscript by the scheduled time, and to finish reviewing the manuscript in a timely manner. Reviewers should present their comments about the manuscript to the authors courteously. When reviewers suspect misconduct or ethical issues in the manuscript, they should immediately inform the editor and cooperate with the editor regarding any next steps to be taken. The resolution process will be initiated following the flowchart provided by the COPE (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

Regulations on Review and Publication

1. Purpose
The purpose of these Regulations is to define matters regarding the review and publication of manuscripts submitted to Child Health Nursing Research.

2. Selection of Reviewers
1) The editorial board can nominate potential reviewers. Reviewers should be experts in the corresponding field.
2) The editor-in-chief selects reviewers. Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same university or medical center as the author.
3) Information about manuscripts, authors, and reviewers should be kept confidential.
4) If a reviewer cannot finish the review within 2 weeks, the editor-in-chief can replace the reviewer.

3. Peer Review Process
Child Health Nursing Research reviews all manuscripts received through a peer review system (http://www.chnr-submission.org/). A manuscript is first reviewed for its format and adherence to the aims and scope of the journal. If the manuscript meets these two criteria, it is dispatched to two or more investigators in the field with relevant knowledge. Once a manuscript is sent to reviewers, CHNR waits to receive opinions from all reviewers. The authors’ names and affiliations are removed during peer review (double-blind peer review). The editor-in-chief of CHNR makes the final decision regarding each manuscript’s publication based on the reveiwers’ critiques and recommendations, as well as the scientific merits of the manuscript. An initial decision is normally be made within 4 weeks of receipt of a manuscript, and the reviewers’ comments are sent to the corresponding author by e-mail. The corresponding author must indicate the alterations that have been made in response to the reviewers’ comments item by item. Failure to resubmit the revised manuscript within 4 weeks of the editorial decision is regarded as a withdrawal. If a further revision period is required, the author should contact the editorial office through the inquiry form available at: https://www.e-chnr.org/about/contact.php. The editor informs the corresponding author of the final decision on acceptance or rejection for publication. After the final ‘accept’ decision, an editorial and statistical review and similarity check precede publication. All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed in the same way as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters do not engage in the decision process. Editors do not handle their own manuscripts, even if they are commissioned. We guarantee neither acceptance without review nor very short peer review times for unsolicited manuscripts. Commissioned manuscripts also reviewed before publication.

4. Review Results
1) Manuscripts that are classified as “accepted” are accepted without any changes.
2) Manuscripts that are classified as “accepted with revisions” are accepted after the authors revise as suggested by the reviewers, and the editorial board validates the corrections.
3) Manuscripts that are classified as “revise and resubmit” can be reviewed again after the authors revise as suggested by the reviewers.
4) Manuscripts are classified as “rejected” when two or more reviewers recommend rejection during the review process. The editorial board will then notify the authors that the manuscript will not be published if the authors had been requested to revise the manuscript, but failed to revise without legitimate justification presented to and acknowledged by the editorial board.

5. Notification of Review Results
After all the reviewers finish reviewing the manuscript, the editor-in-chief notifies the authors of the review results within a week, and allows the authors an opportunity to either submit revisions to the manuscript or raise objections to the review.

6. Decision for Publication
If reviewers have conflicting opinions about whether to accept the manuscript or not, the editor-in-chief may make the final decision.

7. Peer Review Process for Handling Submissions from Editors, Employees, or Members of the Editorial Board
All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed same to other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters will not engage in the selection of reviewers and decision process. Editors will not handle their own manuscripts even if the articles are commissioned.