Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Community Engagement in Nursing undergo a rigorous editorial assessment and peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of published articles.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first examined by the editorial team to assess its compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, and overall academic quality.

The editorial team may reject manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are considered outside its scope.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment will proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who have expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and expertise in the relevant field of nursing and healthcare.

The journal ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the submitted research.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

  • Originality and contribution to nursing knowledge and practice.

  • Clarity of research objectives and problem statements.

  • Appropriateness of research methodology and study design.

  • Accuracy and validity of data analysis and interpretation.

  • Quality of discussion and relevance of supporting literature.

  • Ethical considerations and compliance with research ethics.

  • Clarity of presentation, structure, and academic language.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editorial assessment, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revisions.

  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor corrections or improvements before acceptance.

  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be subject to further review.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editor.

5. Manuscript Revision

Authors receiving revision requests must revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' and editors' comments.

Authors are required to submit:

  1. A revised manuscript highlighting or tracking the changes made.

  2. A point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions are required.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified period may result in the withdrawal or closure of the submission.

6. Final Decision and Publication

Once the manuscript has successfully completed the review and revision process, the editor will issue a final acceptance decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading before publication.

The journal publishes two issues annually, in June and December.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in the manuscripts for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained.

The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, fairness, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the peer review process.

8. Estimated Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct the review process efficiently while maintaining academic quality. The estimated timeline is as follows:

  • Initial editorial assessment: 1–2 weeks.

  • Peer review process: 3–6 weeks.

  • Author revision: Depending on the revision category and the deadline provided by the editor.

  • Final editorial decision: 1–2 weeks after the revised manuscript is received.

These timelines are estimates and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.