Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the Health Science and Nursing Research Journal (HSNRJ). Reviewers are expected to provide independent, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments of manuscripts.
Before Accepting a Review
A reviewer should accept an invitation only when:
- the manuscript falls sufficiently within their area of expertise;
- they can provide an objective and independent assessment;
- no significant conflict of interest exists; and
- they can complete the review within the requested period.
If these conditions cannot be met, the reviewer should decline the invitation promptly.
Evaluation of the Manuscript
Reviewers should consider whether:
Title and Abstract
The title accurately represents the study and the abstract provides a clear and balanced summary.
Introduction
The research problem is clearly presented, adequately supported by relevant literature, and leads logically to the study objective or research question.
Methods
The research design, participants, sampling, instruments, interventions, data collection, and analytical methods are appropriate and sufficiently described to permit scientific evaluation.
Ethical Considerations
Research involving human participants or animals should provide appropriate information regarding ethical approval, informed consent, and other applicable ethical safeguards.
Results
Results should be presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the methods and analyses described.
Discussion
Interpretations should be supported by the findings, appropriately related to existing evidence, and should acknowledge relevant limitations.
Conclusion
Conclusions should be supported by the results and should not overstate the implications of the research.
References
References should be relevant and sufficiently current to support the scientific context. Reviewers should identify important omissions when necessary but must not manipulate citations for personal or journal-related benefit.
Constructive Review
Reviewer comments should help authors and editors evaluate and, where appropriate, improve the manuscript.
Reviewers are encouraged to:
- identify major scientific concerns clearly;
- distinguish major issues from minor corrections;
- explain the reasoning behind recommendations;
- provide specific suggestions when possible; and
- maintain respectful and professional language.
Confidentiality
The manuscript, supplementary files, reviewer invitation, review report, and related editorial communications must be treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for their own research, publication, financial benefit, professional advantage, or disadvantage of others.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could reasonably influence their judgment.
Potential conflicts may include recent collaboration, close personal or professional relationships, institutional relationships, financial interests, academic competition, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.
When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the potential conflict to the editor.
Suspected Misconduct
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or another serious integrity concern, the reviewer should report the matter confidentially to the editor.
Reviewers should not directly accuse or contact the authors or conduct an independent investigation.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Because manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, substantial manuscript content, unpublished data, identifiable participant information, or confidential editorial material to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external services when doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or research integrity.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and confidentiality of their review reports.
Any use of AI-assisted tools in the review process must comply with HSNRJ's confidentiality, data-protection, and editorial policies.
Reviewer Recommendation
After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation using the decision options available in the HSNRJ submission system.
Recommendations should be based on scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, originality, relevance, and the manuscript's contribution to the journal's field.
The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor.
Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities
By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of:
Confidentiality — Independence — Objectivity — Integrity — Fairness — Timeliness — Transparency regarding conflicts of interest.
Reviewers who cannot meet these responsibilities should decline the review assignment or contact the editorial office.