Review Guidelines

The International Journal for Research in Health Sciences and Nursing (IJRHNS) follows a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. The journal adheres to the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Role and Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive, clear, and respectful feedback to help authors improve their work.

Reviews should assess the scientific validity, originality, relevance, and clarity of the manuscript, and provide recommendations based solely on academic merit.

Before Accepting a Review Assignment

  • Expertise: Accept review requests only if the manuscript aligns with our field of expertise.
  • Availability: Reviews should normally be completed within two-three week. Inform the editor promptly if additional time is required.
  • Conflict of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office before proceeding.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material from the manuscript for personal advantage.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and Contribution: Does the study present new knowledge or meaningful insights?
  • Relevance: Is the manuscript aligned with the aims and scope of the journal?
  • Scientific Rigor: Are the research design, methodology, and analysis appropriate and sound?
  • Ethical Compliance: Are ethical standards followed, including proper citation and disclosure?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well structured and clearly written?

Manuscript Structure Review

  • Title & Abstract: Accurate, informative, and reflective of the study.
  • Introduction: Clear research objectives and relevant background.
  • Methodology: Detailed and reproducible methods.
  • Results: Clearly presented without interpretation errors.
  • Discussion & Conclusion: Conclusions supported by results and linked to existing literature.
  • Tables & Figures: Relevant, accurate, and easy to interpret.

Authors must prepare and submit manuscripts in accordance with the official ARC Publishing manuscript guidelines. Detailed instructions regarding formatting, ethics, and submission procedures are available at: https://www.arcpublishing.org/guidelines

Language and Presentation

If language quality affects understanding, reviewers should inform the editor. Reviewers are not required to edit language but may recommend professional language editing where necessary.

Guidelines for Reviewer Comments

  • Identify the strengths and contribution of the manuscript.
  • Clearly explain major issues requiring revision.
  • Suggest minor improvements where applicable.
  • Provide specific, actionable feedback.
  • Separate comments for the editor from those intended for the authors.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Conduct reviews objectively and without personal bias.
  • Acknowledge relevant work not cited by the authors.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, or ethical concerns to the editor.
  • Do not use information gained during peer review for personal benefit.

The Editor will carefully consider all reviewer reports before making a final decision on the manuscript.