A. How to be a Reviewer?

• 1. Eligibility and Nomination
  • The editorial board nominates potential reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field.
  • The editor-in-chief selects reviewers while ensuring no affiliations with the authors' institutions, such as shared universities or medical centers, to maintain objectivity.

B. Peer Review Process

• 1. Peer Review Policy
  • Child Health Nursing Research (CHNR) adheres to a strict double-blind peer review system. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process to ensure impartial evaluations.
  • All submissions, including editor-invited papers, are subject to peer review.
  • The editor-in-chief assigns reviewers based on their expertise, previous publication history, and performance on past reviews.
• 2. Peer Review Procedure
  • Initial Screening: The editorial team evaluates manuscripts for format and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. Only manuscripts meeting these criteria proceed to peer review.
  • Assignment to Reviewers: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, relevance, and contribution to child health nursing.
  • Reviewer Feedback: Reviewer comments should be constructive and aimed at helping authors improve their work. Feedback should include general observations and detailed evaluations of the manuscript’s key components (e.g., introduction, methodology, results, and discussion).
  • Editorial Decision: The editor-in-chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewer comments and the manuscript’s overall quality. Initial decisions are typically made within four weeks.
• 3. Timelines for Authors
  • The editorial board notify to author of the review outcomes within a week of the final review completion.
  • If revisions are requested, authors must resubmit within four weeks. Extensions may be granted upon request but require editorial approval.
• 4. Handling Submissions from Editors and Staff
  • Manuscripts from editors, employees, or editorial board members are processed with the same rigor as other submissions.
  • These individuals do not participate in the review or decision-making process for their manuscripts to maintain fairness and transparency.
• 5. Ethical Standards in Peer Review
  • Reviewers must maintain objectivity, avoid personal bias, and immediately report any ethical concerns or suspected misconduct to the editor.
  • In cases of ethical issues, CHNR follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and resolution processes, ensuring the integrity of the review process.

C. Reviewer Best Practices and Guidelines

• 1. Key Responsibilities
  • Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, including author and reviewer identities, and refrain from using content or ideas for personal research or discussing it with others.
  • Objective Assessment: Evaluate manuscripts impartially, focusing on originality, relevance, scientific value, and adherence to ethical standards.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, actionable comments that help authors improve their work. Feedback should address strengths, weaknesses, and specific areas for enhancement.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers complete reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe, typically two weeks. It’s essential to inform the editor promptly if you cannot meet the deadline to allow alternative arrangements.
• 2. Evaluation Criteria
  • Originality: Assess whether the research contributes new insights or perspectives to child health nursing.
  • Relevance: Determine if the topic aligns with the journal’s scope and target audience.
  • Methodology: Evaluate the soundness of the study’s design, data collection, and analysis methods.
  • Clarity: Ensure the manuscript is well-organized, with clear writing and logical flow.
  • References: Confirm that the cited literature is current and supports the study’s arguments effectively.
• 3. Feedback and Comments
  • Reviewers are encouraged to divide their feedback into general comments (an overview of the manuscript) and specific comments (targeted suggestions for improvement).
  • General Comments: Summarize the study's strengths, significance, and areas for improvement.
    • Example: “This study explores a critical area in child health nursing and provides meaningful insights into family-centered care. However, the theoretical framework requires further elaboration to contextualize the findings effectively.”
  • Specific Comments: Focus on detailed aspects of the manuscript, such as methodological rigor, clarity of results, and alignment with research objectives.
    • Significant Issue Example: “The sampling method lacks clarity. Please specify the rationale for using a convenience sample and how potential biases were mitigated.”
    • Minor Issue Example: “Consider rephrasing ambiguous sentences in the discussion section to improve clarity.”
• 4. Conflict of Interest
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, professional, or financial) that may affect your impartiality.
  • If a conflict arises after agreeing to review, notify the editor and withdraw if necessary.
• 5. Ethical Obligations
  • Report any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submissions, to the editor for resolution.
  • Adhere to CHNR’s ethical guidelines and consult COPE resources for guidance on ethical decision-making.

D. Outcomes and Notifications

• 1. Review Results
  • Accepted: The manuscript is accepted as submitted, requiring no changes.
  • Accepted with Revisions: Minor changes are required before publication.
  • Revise and Resubmit: Significant revisions are necessary, and the manuscript will be re-evaluated.
  • Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication based on reviewers’ unanimous recommendations.
• 2. Notification to Authors
  • Authors receive feedback and the editorial decision within one week of review completion.
  • They are given the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript or raise objections if they disagree with the review outcome.
• 3. Post-Revision Process
  • Revised manuscripts must address all reviewer comments with a detailed response letter.
  • Failure to resubmit within the allocated time may result in withdrawal of the submission.
• 4. Editorial Oversight
  • The editor-in-chief resolves conflicts between reviewers’ opinions and ensures the final decision is based on the manuscript’s merits.