Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a fundamental component of the editorial process of the Celebes Nursing Journal (CNJ) and supports the scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical integrity, relevance, and scholarly contribution of published work.
CNJ applies editorial assessment and external peer review according to article type. Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Case Reports / Case Studies undergo external double-blind peer review. Perspectives undergo editorial assessment and may be referred for external double-blind peer review when appropriate, while Editorials are primarily subject to editorial review, with external expert review requested when necessary.
The applicable review route for each article type is defined in the journal's Section Policy, while the operational stages and indicative processing times are described in the Editorial & Peer Review Process.
CNJ's peer review practices are guided by principles of editorial independence, confidentiality, impartiality, appropriate reviewer expertise, conflict-of-interest management, research integrity, and responsible scholarly evaluation. This policy is informed by relevant principles of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the ICMJE Recommendations, and CNJ's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS).

1. Principles and Scope of Peer Review
This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to CNJ and to authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals involved in manuscript evaluation and editorial decision-making.
Peer review at CNJ is intended to provide independent scholarly evaluation and support informed editorial decision-making. The process is guided by the following principles:

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but are advisory rather than determinative. Final responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor in accordance with CNJ's editorial policies.

2. Review Routes by Article Type
The review route is determined according to the article type, purpose, and scholarly content of the submission.

Article Type Review Route Reviewer Requirement
Original Research Articles External double-blind peer review A minimum of two qualified independent reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.
Review Articles External double-blind peer review A minimum of two qualified independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.
Case Reports / Case Studies External double-blind peer review A minimum of two qualified independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.
Perspectives Editorial assessment; external double-blind peer review may be requested when appropriate When external peer review is required, a minimum of two qualified independent reviewers are assigned. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.
Editorials Editorial review; external expert review may be requested when appropriate When external review is considered necessary, the number and expertise of reviewers are determined by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor according to the nature of the manuscript.

Editorials authored by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, an Editorial Board member, or another member of the editorial team must be handled by another qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being forwarded to the applicable review route.
The Editor-in-Chief, designated editor, or editorial office assesses, where applicable:

Similarity reports are interpreted contextually in accordance with CNJ's Plagiarism & Similarity Policy and are not used as automatic indicators of plagiarism.
Following initial editorial assessment, a manuscript may be:

A decision to decline a manuscript before external peer review remains an editorial decision and may be appealed in accordance with CNJ's Complaints & Appeals Policy.

4. Reviewer Selection and Independence
Reviewers are selected on the basis of appropriate expertise, independence, scholarly background, and ability to provide a rigorous and timely evaluation.
Reviewer selection considers, where applicable:

Detailed eligibility requirements are provided in CNJ's Reviewer Selection Criteria.
Editorial Board members may serve as reviewers when they possess appropriate expertise and have no relevant conflict of interest. Membership of the Editorial Board does not exempt a reviewer from CNJ's requirements concerning independence, confidentiality, professional conduct, or conflict-of-interest disclosure.
Additional reviewers may be invited when reviewer assessments differ substantially, additional methodological or disciplinary expertise is required, specialist evaluation is necessary, significant ethical or research-integrity concerns arise, or the editor requires further independent advice before reaching a decision.
Editorial decisions are not determined by simple reviewer voting. Editors consider the quality, reasoning, relevance, and consistency of reviewer reports.

5. Double-Blind Review and Confidentiality
For manuscripts undergoing external double-blind peer review, CNJ does not disclose the identities of authors to reviewers or the identities of reviewers to authors.
Authors must remove direct identifying information from the blinded manuscript and related review files. Author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, author contribution statements, and other identifying information should be provided separately where required by the journal's submission system.
The editorial office checks manuscript anonymization before external review. If identifying information remains in the manuscript, the submission may be returned for correction or the identifying information may be removed before review proceeds.
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, supplementary materials, and related unpublished information are treated as confidential scholarly communications.
Editors and reviewers must not:

Confidentiality obligations continue regardless of whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, withdrawn, or rejected. Detailed reviewer responsibilities concerning confidentiality and professional conduct are provided in CNJ's Reviewer Ethics and Reviewer Guidelines.

6. Reviewer Evaluation and Recommendations
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the article type, study design, objectives, and scholarly claims of the work.
Evaluation may consider, where applicable:

Research designs are evaluated according to standards appropriate to those designs. Criteria appropriate to quantitative research should not be imposed inappropriately on qualitative research, and qualitative criteria should not be applied inappropriately to quantitative research.
Reviewers should provide comments that are objective, evidence-informed, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently clear to support their recommendation. Reviewers should distinguish between substantive revisions necessary to address scientific or ethical concerns and optional suggestions intended primarily to improve presentation.
Reviewers must not request unnecessary citation of their own publications or other sources for the purpose of increasing citation counts.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the final editorial decision. Detailed expectations for manuscript evaluation and reviewer conduct are provided in the Reviewer Guidelines and Reviewer Ethics.

7. Editorial Decision, Revision, and Re-review
Editors evaluate the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical considerations, and applicable journal requirements before reaching an editorial decision.
Editorial decisions may take into account:

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may evaluate the reasoning supporting each recommendation, seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, consult another qualified editor, or reach an editorial decision when sufficient evidence is available.
Authors requested to revise a manuscript should provide a point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments and clearly explain how substantive concerns have been addressed. Authors may respectfully disagree with a reviewer recommendation when they provide an appropriate scholarly justification.
Revised manuscripts may undergo editorial reassessment, re-review by the original reviewers, evaluation by additional reviewers, or specialist review when necessary.
A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance.
Final responsibility for acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor, subject to CNJ's requirements concerning editorial independence and conflict-of-interest management.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and publication through the workflow described in the Editorial & Peer Review Process.

8. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, impartial judgment.
Relevant circumstances may include:

Reviewers should decline an assignment when impartiality cannot reasonably be assured. If a relevant conflict becomes apparent after accepting an assignment, the reviewer must notify the editor promptly.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling or deciding manuscripts for which they have a relevant conflict of interest.
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or other individuals whose relationship with the handling editor creates a relevant conflict must be assigned to another qualified and independent editor. Such manuscripts are subject to the same applicable scientific, ethical, and peer-review standards as other submissions and must not receive preferential treatment.
The publisher does not interfere with reviewer selection or decisions concerning the acceptance, revision, or rejection of individual manuscripts.
Detailed requirements are provided in CNJ's Conflict of Interest Policy and Reviewer Conflict of Interest policy.

9. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
CNJ requires scientific and editorial judgments during peer review to remain human-led and human-accountable, consistent with the ICMJE Recommendations on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Publishing
Reviewers must not:

Any limited non-substantive technological assistance must comply with CNJ's Reviewer AI Policy and must not compromise manuscript confidentiality or reviewer accountability.
Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and content of the reviews they submit. Journal-wide requirements concerning the responsible use of AI are provided in CNJ's AI Use Policy.

10. Ethical Concerns, Reviewer Misconduct, Appeals, and Complaints
Editors and reviewers share responsibility for identifying potential concerns that may affect the integrity of the review process or scholarly record.
Relevant concerns may include:

Reviewers should report suspected concerns confidentially to the editor and should not directly accuse or contact the authors. Concerns are assessed in accordance with CNJ's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (PEMS) and applicable journal policies. An allegation is not treated as established misconduct until it has been appropriately assessed.
Reviewer misconduct may include breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized use of manuscript content, coercive citation practices, intentionally biased evaluation, abusive or discriminatory comments, unauthorized delegation of reviews, manipulation of the peer-review process, or prohibited use of generative AI.
Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, CNJ may disregard the affected review, obtain an additional independent review, discontinue future reviewer assignments, or take other proportionate editorial action in accordance with the journal's ethical procedures.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint concerning the review process when they believe that a substantive scientific, procedural, or ethical issue has not been adequately considered.
Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with CNJ's Complaints & Appeals Policy. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

11. Policy Review
This Peer Review Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure continued consistency with CNJ's editorial practices, publication-ethics framework, and relevant developments in scholarly peer review.
Material changes to the peer-review model or related requirements will be reflected consistently in the journal's applicable policies and public information.