International Journal for Research in Health Sciences and Nursing (IJRHNS)

The International Journal for Research in Health Sciences and Nursing (IJRHNS), published by ARC Publication Services L.L.C., is committed to ethical and responsible peer review in accordance with the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recognized scholarly publishing practices.

Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing. Reviewers contribute to the assessment of the originality, methodological quality, reliability, relevance, and ethical integrity of manuscripts submitted to the journal. These guidelines describe the responsibilities expected of reviewers throughout the review process.

1. Peer Review Model

IJRHNS follows a double-blind peer review process for manuscripts considered suitable for external review. Under this model:

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors during the review process.
• Manuscripts are evaluated by independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
• Reviews consider scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, presentation, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.
• Editorial decisions take account of reviewer reports and the editor's independent assessment.

Reviews must be conducted fairly, objectively, confidentially, and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or other irrelevant personal characteristics. Reviewers should disclose any circumstances that may affect their impartiality.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to assess the manuscript objectively, maintain confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

2.1 Scientific and Academic Integrity

Reviewers should:

• Evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merits and relevant evidence.
• Assess originality, significance, and relevance to health sciences, nursing, or allied health.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, methods, analysis, and interpretation.
• Consider whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.
• Identify important limitations and areas requiring clarification or improvement.
• Provide constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments.
• Avoid personal criticism, unsupported allegations, and discriminatory judgments.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as unpublished intellectual work. Reviewers must:

• Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
• Not use unpublished information, data, methods, or findings for personal, academic, or professional advantage.
• Not reproduce or retain manuscript materials beyond what is necessary for the review and permitted by the journal's procedures.
• Protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and review correspondence during and after the review process.
• Not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript submitted for double-blind review unless disclosure is necessary for a legitimate ethical concern.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review. Relevant circumstances may include:

• Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.
• Institutional, professional, supervisory, or financial relationships that may affect impartiality.
• Funding, commercial, or other interests related to the research.
• Direct academic competition or personal relationships or disputes.
• Any other circumstance that could reasonably influence an objective assessment.

Where a conflict may compromise impartiality, reviewers should decline the invitation and inform the editorial office. The editor will determine whether an alternative reviewer is required.

5. Ethical Vigilance and Research Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editorial office confidentially if they identify potential concerns that may affect the integrity, validity, or ethical acceptability of a manuscript, including:

• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap with existing work.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Possible fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data or images.
• Inappropriate authorship practices or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Citation manipulation or requests for unnecessary citations.
• Concerns regarding research ethics approval, informed consent, participant confidentiality, or protection of vulnerable populations, where applicable.
• Ethical concerns relating to research involving animals, where applicable.
• Undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative artificial intelligence where disclosure is required by journal policy.
• Other issues that may undermine the reliability or responsible reporting of research.

Reviewers should report concerns to the editorial office rather than making unsupported accusations or contacting the authors directly about suspected misconduct. The editorial team will assess the concern and determine appropriate next steps.

6. Scientific Evaluation Standards

6.1 Originality and Scholarly Contribution

• Whether the manuscript addresses a relevant research question or evidence gap.
• Originality, significance, and potential contribution to health sciences, nursing, or allied health.
• Relevance to the aims and scope of IJRHNS.

6.2 Methodological Rigor

• Appropriateness of the research design and methods.
• Suitability of participant selection, sampling, and data collection, where applicable.
• Appropriateness of statistical analysis or other analytical approaches.
• Consideration of research ethics, consent, and participant protection, where applicable.
• Whether sufficient methodological detail is provided to support interpretation and reproducibility, where applicable.

6.3 Results and Interpretation

• Clarity, consistency, and appropriate presentation of the results.
• Accuracy and relevance of tables, figures, and other supporting material.
• Whether interpretations and conclusions are supported by the evidence.
• Acknowledgement of limitations and potential sources of bias.

6.4 Literature and Referencing

• Relevance and adequacy of the literature review.
• Appropriate use of relevant and authoritative literature.
• Accuracy and consistency of citations and references.
• Balanced citation practices, without unnecessary or coercive citation requests.

6.5 Clarity and Scholarly Presentation

• Logical organization and clarity of scientific communication.
• Appropriate terminology and reporting of methods and findings.
• Quality and clarity of tables, figures, and supplementary material.
• Distinction between minor language issues and substantive scientific concerns.

7. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts when using digital tools or artificial intelligence systems during peer review. Reviewers should:

• Not upload confidential manuscripts or substantial portions of them to public or third-party AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured or such use is not authorized.
• Not use AI tools in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality, author privacy, or the integrity of the review process.
• Not allow AI-generated assessments to replace their own expert evaluation and professional judgment.
• Verify any permitted technical or language assistance and remain responsible for the accuracy and content of the review report.
• Follow the journal's applicable policies regarding disclosure and responsible use of AI tools.

8. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

• Complete reviews within the timeframe communicated by the editorial office.
• Inform the editorial office promptly if additional time is required.
• Decline review invitations when the subject falls outside their expertise or they lack availability.
• Provide respectful, professional, clear, and constructive comments.
• Avoid offensive, discriminatory, defamatory, or personal remarks.

Reviewers who cannot complete an assignment should notify the editorial office as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be considered.

9. Review Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a recommendation supported by clear, specific, and evidence-based comments. The available recommendations may include:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewer reports, the manuscript's scholarly quality, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial standards.

10. Accountability and Transparency

The editorial office maintains appropriate records of peer review activities to support accountability, confidentiality, and consistent editorial decision-making.

Where serious concerns or breaches of reviewer responsibilities arise, the journal may take appropriate action depending on the circumstances, including:

• Removing a reviewer from the journal's reviewer database.
• Suspending or discontinuing future review invitations.
• Assessing the reported concern and taking steps to protect confidentiality and research integrity.
• Referring the matter to an appropriate institution or authority where warranted.

Any action will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern and consistent with applicable ethical and editorial procedures.

11. Commitment to Quality and Research Integrity

Reviewers are valued contributors to the quality and integrity of research published in the International Journal for Research in Health Sciences and Nursing. Through independent, fair, and constructive evaluation, reviewers help strengthen the reliability, relevance, and scholarly contribution of published research.

IJRHNS and ARC Publication Services L.L.C. are committed to responsible peer review, confidentiality, editorial independence, ethical research practices, and respectful treatment of authors and reviewers.