Peer Review Policy

Advances in Nursing & Midwifery follows a double-blind peer review process. Under this model, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are not informed of the identity of the authors, and authors are not informed of the identity of the reviewers.

The purpose of the peer review process is to ensure the scientific quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of manuscripts published in the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and confidential assessment of each manuscript.

The journal's peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including the ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially.
• Assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of the manuscript.
• Provide clear, constructive, and professional comments that can help authors improve their manuscript.
• Maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process.
• Declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
• Complete reviews within the timeframe requested by the editorial office.
• Inform the editorial office promptly if they are unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
• Notify the editor of any suspected ethical concerns, research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or substantial similarity with other published or submitted work.
• Base their evaluation on the content and scientific merit of the manuscript rather than on the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, academic status, political or religious views, or other personal characteristics.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system to promote impartiality and minimize potential bias in the evaluation of manuscripts.

Under this system:

1. The manuscript submitted to the journal is prepared for anonymous review.
2. Author names, affiliations, email addresses, acknowledgements, and other identifying information are removed from the version provided to reviewers whenever possible.
3. Reviewers receive an anonymized manuscript and are not provided with information identifying the authors.
4. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript.
5. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.
6. All communication between reviewers and authors is handled through the editorial office or the journal's online submission system.
7. If a reviewer becomes aware of the identity of an author and believes that this could affect the impartiality of the review, the reviewer should immediately inform the editorial office.

The journal recognizes that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when a manuscript contains highly distinctive information, publicly available study protocols, or other identifiable details. Nevertheless, the editorial office takes reasonable measures to preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

• Not disclose the manuscript or any information concerning it to anyone without permission from the editor.
• Not share the manuscript, supplementary materials, figures, tables, or data with colleagues or other individuals.
• Not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal, professional, or academic advantage.
• Not discuss the manuscript or its findings with the authors or other researchers.
• Not upload manuscript content or confidential information to external platforms or services without explicit authorization from the journal.

If a reviewer wishes to involve another researcher or trainee in the review process, prior permission must be obtained from the editorial office.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstance that could interfere with an objective and impartial assessment of the manuscript.

A conflict of interest may arise from, but is not limited to:

• Current or recent collaboration with one or more of the authors.
• Employment at the same institution as an author.
• A personal, professional, financial, or academic relationship with an author.
• Direct competition with the authors or their research group.
• A strong personal or professional interest in the outcome of the research.
• Having a manuscript under preparation or consideration that substantially overlaps with the manuscript being reviewed.

If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest, they should inform the editorial office and decline the review if appropriate. Reviewers should not accept a manuscript for review solely to gain access to unpublished research.

5. Qualifications and Acceptance of a Review

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can provide an impartial assessment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation if:

• The subject matter falls substantially outside their area of expertise.
• They have a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.
• They cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• They are unable to provide an objective assessment.

If a reviewer declines an invitation, they may recommend alternative reviewers with appropriate expertise, provided that such recommendations are made objectively and without attempting to influence the editorial decision.

6. Evaluation of the Manuscript

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when evaluating a manuscript:

1. Originality and Significance

• Is the research original?
• Does the manuscript address an important issue in nursing, midwifery, healthcare, education, clinical practice, or related fields?
• Does the study provide meaningful new knowledge or evidence?

1. Scientific and Methodological Quality

• Is the research question clearly stated?
• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
• Are the methods adequately described?
• Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
• Are data collection procedures clearly described?
• Are statistical analyses or qualitative analytical methods appropriate?
• Are the conclusions supported by the results?

1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should assess whether appropriate ethical principles have been addressed, including, where applicable:

• Ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee.
• Informed consent.
• Protection of participants' privacy and confidentiality.
• Appropriate reporting of research involving human participants.
• Registration of clinical trials where applicable.
• Appropriate disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest.

Any concerns regarding research ethics or possible misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than investigated independently by the reviewer.

1. Presentation and Organization

Reviewers should consider:

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Appropriate structure and logical presentation.
• Quality and clarity of tables and figures.
• Accuracy and completeness of references.
• Appropriate use of scientific terminology.
• Clarity of the English language.

Reviewers should focus primarily on the scientific content and should not recommend unnecessary language or stylistic changes when these do not affect the clarity or accuracy of the manuscript.

7. Preparing the Review Report

A useful review should be objective, constructive, specific, and respectful.

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their comments as follows:

General Comments

Provide a brief overall assessment of the manuscript, including its main strengths and major concerns.

Major Comments

Identify issues that substantially affect the validity, interpretation, originality, or scientific quality of the manuscript.

Examples include:

• Major methodological limitations.
• Inappropriate study design.
• Insufficient description of methods.
• Serious statistical problems.
• Unsupported conclusions.
• Important ethical concerns.
• Missing essential information.

Minor Comments

Identify issues that do not fundamentally affect the scientific validity of the manuscript but could improve its clarity or presentation.

Examples include:

• Minor methodological clarifications.
• Typographical errors.
• Problems with tables or figures.
• Inconsistencies in terminology.
• Reference or formatting issues.

Comments should be directed toward improving the manuscript rather than criticizing the authors personally.

8. Recommendation to the Editor

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may provide a recommendation through the journal's review system, such as:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the scientific assessment provided in the review report.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's scientific quality, and the journal's editorial policies. A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not by itself determine the final decision.

9. Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary.

However, confidential comments should not contain unsupported accusations or statements that are inappropriate to communicate professionally. Whenever possible, substantive criticism should also be clearly explained in the comments intended for the authors.

The comments to the editor and the comments to the authors should not contradict each other.

10. Suspected Misconduct or Ethical Concerns

If a reviewer suspects:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity with another publication;
• Duplicate or redundant publication;
• Fabrication or falsification of data;
• Manipulation of images or data;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Inappropriate authorship;
• Ethical approval or informed consent problems;
• Any other form of research or publication misconduct;

the reviewer should confidentially notify the editorial office through the journal's review system.

Reviewers should not contact the authors directly or conduct their own investigation unless specifically requested by the editorial office.

11. Timeliness

Timely peer review is essential to maintaining an efficient editorial process.

Reviewers are requested to:

• Accept an invitation only if they can complete the review within the requested period.
• Submit their review by the agreed deadline.
• Contact the editorial office as soon as possible if an extension is required.
• Inform the editor promptly if they are no longer able to complete the review.

Reviewers should not intentionally delay the review process or request unnecessary additional work from authors.

12. Reviewer Anonymity

Advances in Nursing & Midwifery does not disclose reviewers' identities to authors during or after the peer review process unless the journal explicitly adopts a different policy for a particular article type.

Reviewers should also avoid including identifying information in their review comments, file names, or uploaded documents.

When submitting a review document, reviewers are advised to check the document properties and remove personal identifying information when possible.

13. After the Review

The confidentiality of the manuscript continues after the review has been completed.

Reviewers should not:

• Share the manuscript or review correspondence.
• Use unpublished findings or ideas from the manuscript.
• Publicly discuss the manuscript before publication.
• Attempt to influence the editorial decision outside the formal review process.

Reviewers may be invited to assess a revised version of a manuscript they previously reviewed. When invited, reviewers should consider whether they remain able to provide an impartial assessment.

14. Editorial Independence

The editorial decision is made independently by the journal's editorial team. Reviewers provide expert assessments to assist editors in making informed decisions.

The journal does not guarantee publication based solely on positive reviewer recommendations, nor does a negative recommendation automatically result in rejection. The final decision may take into account multiple reviewer reports, editorial assessment, the manuscript's relevance to the journal, and ethical or publication considerations.

15. Ethical Framework

The reviewer guidelines of Advances in Nursing & Midwifery are informed by internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these principles and to conduct their reviews with fairness, confidentiality, integrity, and respect for authors and research participants.

A Note to Reviewers

Peer review is an essential academic responsibility and an important contribution to maintaining the quality and integrity of the scholarly literature. Reviewers are expected to approach every manuscript fairly, independently, confidentially, and constructively.

Thank you for contributing your expertise to Advances in Nursing & Midwifery.