Health Science and Nursing Research Journal (HSNRJ) applies a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to maintain the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published articles. Research manuscripts considered suitable for the journal undergo double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.
1. Submission and Administrative Screening
All submitted manuscripts are initially checked by the editorial office for completeness and compliance with the journal's submission requirements, including manuscript structure, authorship information, ethical declarations, supporting documents, and adherence to the Author Guidelines.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further evaluation.
2. Editorial Screening
Following administrative screening, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript for:
- relevance to the aims and scope of HSNRJ;
- originality and potential scientific contribution;
- methodological appropriateness;
- overall scholarly quality;
- ethical compliance; and
- suitability for peer review.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, scientifically inadequate, ethically problematic, or insufficiently developed may be rejected at this stage without external peer review (desk rejection).
3. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening
Manuscripts may be screened using appropriate similarity-detection software and editorial assessment to identify potential plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other concerns related to research and publication integrity.
A similarity score is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. Editors assess the nature, location, and context of any identified similarities.
Suspected misconduct is handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.
4. Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area and/or research methodology.
Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, scholarly competence, independence, availability, and potential conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should not have relationships or interests that could reasonably compromise the impartiality of their assessment.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
HSNRJ applies a double-blind peer-review model for research manuscripts. Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes information that could directly reveal their identities to reviewers.
Reviewers are likewise expected to maintain anonymity and must not attempt to identify or contact the authors during the review process.
6. Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scholarly criteria, including:
- originality and significance of the research;
- relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
- clarity of the research question or objectives;
- appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
- adequacy of data analysis;
- validity and clarity of the results;
- quality and depth of the discussion;
- consistency between evidence and conclusions;
- ethical considerations;
- relevance and adequacy of references;
- clarity of scientific writing; and
- overall contribution to nursing, health sciences, healthcare, or population health.
Reviewer recommendations may include:
Accept Submission
Revisions Required
Resubmit for Review
Resubmit Elsewhere
Decline Submission
Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision.
7. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' responses, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial standards when making a decision.
When reviewer recommendations substantially differ, the editor may evaluate the conflicting assessments, request clarification, or invite an additional independent reviewer when necessary.
The final responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor, rather than with individual reviewers.
8. Revision
When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Where an author disagrees with a recommendation, a reasoned scientific explanation should be provided.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
9. Final Acceptance and Publication
A manuscript may be formally accepted when the editor is satisfied that the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial requirements have been adequately addressed.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal's production process, which may include copyediting, layout preparation, metadata verification, author proofreading, and final publication.
Acceptance following peer review does not prevent the journal from addressing significant ethical, legal, or research-integrity concerns discovered before or after publication.
10. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.
Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process has concluded.