Review Policy

Health Science and Nursing Research Journal (HSNRJ) is committed to maintaining a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer-review process.

Peer Review Model

HSNRJ uses double-blind peer review for research manuscripts, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process.

The journal seeks to ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, personal relationships, or other irrelevant considerations.

Reviewer Independence

Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an objective assessment.

When a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • share manuscripts or supplementary materials with unauthorized persons;
  • discuss manuscript contents outside the review process;
  • use unpublished data, arguments, methods, or ideas for personal advantage;
  • contact authors directly concerning the manuscript; or
  • disclose confidential editorial correspondence.

Any consultation with another specialist requires prior authorization from the editorial office.

Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews should be evidence-based, constructive, specific, and professionally expressed.

Personal criticism, discriminatory statements, hostile language, unsupported accusations, or comments unrelated to the scientific quality of the manuscript are inappropriate.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish between essential revisions and optional recommendations.

Research Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor when they identify potential concerns such as:

  • plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • questionable research practices;
  • missing or inadequate ethical approval;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • inappropriate authorship practices; or
  • citation manipulation.

Reviewers should report concerns confidentially to the editor rather than investigate or contact the authors independently.

Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely necessary to improve the scientific accuracy, context, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their associates, HSNRJ, or particular journals.

Editorial Independence

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor based on the manuscript's scientific merit, reviewer reports, ethical considerations, journal scope, and editorial standards.

The publisher does not determine the acceptance or rejection of individual manuscripts.

Conflicts Involving Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when they have relationships or interests that could reasonably affect editorial impartiality.

Such manuscripts should be assigned to another qualified editor who can manage the evaluation independently.

Submissions from members of the editorial board are not automatically prohibited; however, they must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions and must be handled independently of the submitting editor.

Timeliness

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can reasonably complete the review within the requested period.

A reviewer who anticipates a substantial delay should promptly inform the editorial office so that appropriate action can be taken.

HSNRJ seeks to provide authors with timely editorial decisions without compromising the quality and integrity of peer review.

Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a significant error occurred in the editorial or peer-review process.

An appeal must identify the specific scientific, procedural, or ethical basis for reconsideration. Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals should, whenever practicable, be evaluated independently from the original decision-making process.

Peer Review Integrity

HSNRJ reserves the right to investigate suspected manipulation of the peer-review process, including fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, compromised reviewer accounts, coordinated review activity, or other attempts to improperly influence editorial decisions.

Where credible evidence of manipulation or other serious misconduct is identified, the journal may reject a manuscript, withdraw an editorial decision, correct or retract a published article, or take other appropriate actions consistent with its publication ethics policies.