Peer Review Documentation, Traceability, and Quality Assurance

1. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Jurnal Keperawatan Komprehensif (Comprehensive Nursing Journal), abbreviated as JKK, relies on peer reviewers to assess the scientific quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts to nursing knowledge, practice, education, and service management.

Reviewers provide an independent assessment of a manuscript’s strengths and limitations and offer specific, constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Their role is to provide a reasoned recommendation to the editor. Responsibility for the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an independent designated editor when a conflict of interest requires alternative handling.

JKK uses double-anonymized peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during the review process. Original research articles, review articles, and case reports that pass initial editorial assessment undergo evaluation by at least two independent external reviewers who are not members of the journal’s editorial team or editorial board. Relevant supplementary materials are included in the assessment.

Reviewer reports are confidential editorial records and are not published alongside articles. Authors receive the reviewers’ comments through the editorial office without disclosure of reviewer identities.

2. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Expertise and suitability

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have sufficient subject knowledge and methodological expertise to assess the manuscript. Reviewer selection takes account of relevant expertise, recent scholarly publications, and independence from the authors.

Reviewers must provide accurate information about their qualifications, affiliations, and areas of expertise. If particular aspects of a manuscript fall outside their competence, such as a specialized statistical method, they should inform the editor so that additional expertise can be sought.

Reviewers who decline an invitation may suggest alternative experts. The editorial office independently evaluates and appoints any suggested reviewer.

Availability and timeliness

Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations and accept an assignment only when they can complete it by the agreed deadline.

Reviews are normally requested within 2–4 weeks, with the specific due date stated in the review invitation. Reviewers who anticipate a delay should contact the editor promptly to request an extension or allow reassignment. They should not delay a review unnecessarily.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationship that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.

Reviewers should decline assignments involving current institutional colleagues, recent close collaborators, supervisory relationships, or other circumstances that compromise impartiality. Disclosure does not automatically make a conflicting relationship acceptable.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after reviewing has begun, the reviewer must pause the assessment and notify the editor. The editor will determine whether reassignment is necessary.

3. Ethical Conduct and Confidentiality

Confidential handling of materials

Manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished data, correspondence, and review reports must be treated as confidential throughout and after the review process.

Reviewers must not share these materials, use unpublished findings for personal advantage, or discuss the submission publicly. Another person, including a colleague or trainee, may participate only with prior editorial permission. Any approved contribution must be identified to the editor.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the submission. Requests for clarification or additional information should be communicated through the editor.

Respect for anonymization

Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to identify the authors or reveal their own identity in comments or annotated files intended for the authors. If an author’s identity becomes apparent and creates a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must notify the editor.

Objective and respectful assessment

Assessments must address the manuscript’s scholarly content. Comments should be clear, evidence-based, professional, and respectful. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.

Reviewers should distinguish problems that affect scientific validity from matters of presentation or personal stylistic preference. Recommendations must not be influenced by author nationality, institutional prestige, personal relationships, commercial considerations, or payment of publication charges.

Responsible citation recommendations

Suggested references must be relevant to the manuscript and accompanied by a scholarly reason for their inclusion. Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their colleagues, or the journal.

Reporting concerns

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor, with supporting information where available.

Reviewers should describe the concern without presenting an unverified allegation as an established finding. The editor is responsible for arranging any further assessment or investigation.

Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must conduct the assessment and prepare their comments themselves. The use of artificial intelligence to analyze or assess a manuscript, generate or rewrite review comments, or formulate reviewer recommendations is prohibited.

Reviewers must not enter or upload a submitted manuscript, any part of it, supplementary materials, unpublished data, or confidential review content into an AI application.

Review reports must reflect the reviewer’s own reading, analysis, and professional judgment. Reviewers remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their reports.

Assessing the Manuscript

The assessment should be appropriate to the article type and research design. Reviewers should examine the full manuscript and relevant supplementary materials, concentrating on the following areas.

Relevance, contribution, and originality

Consider whether the manuscript:

• Addresses a meaningful question within JKK’s aims and scope.
• Makes a clear contribution to nursing knowledge, practice, education, or service management.
• Explains its contribution in relation to existing evidence.
• Demonstrates the relevance of findings from a local setting while acknowledging contextual limitations.

Originality should be assessed through the manuscript’s contribution and scholarly context. Reviewers should not apply an unsupported ranking such as whether a manuscript belongs to the “top 25%” of papers in a field.

A well-conducted study should not receive an unfavorable recommendation solely because its findings are statistically nonsignificant, inconclusive, or confirmatory.

Title, abstract, and introduction

Assess whether:

• The title accurately describes the subject and, where appropriate, the study design.
• The abstract provides an accurate and balanced account of the purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions.
• The introduction establishes the problem, summarizes relevant evidence, and identifies the gap addressed.
• The objectives, research questions, or hypotheses are clearly stated and appropriate to the design.
• The rationale explains why the work matters to nursing.      

Research methods

For original research, assess whether the methods are suitable for the stated objectives and sufficiently described to support appraisal and, where appropriate, replication.

Relevant considerations include:

• Study design, setting, and study period.
• Participant eligibility, recruitment, sampling, and justification of sample size.
• Description of interventions, comparison conditions, procedures, and follow-up.
• Definition and measurement of variables or outcomes.
• Suitability of instruments, including relevant evidence of validity and reliability.
• Potential sources of bias and approaches to confounding.
• Appropriateness of statistical or qualitative analysis.
• Handling of missing data, withdrawals, and deviations from the planned procedures.

For qualitative studies, consider the fit between the research question, methodological approach, participant selection, data collection, analysis, reflexivity, and presentation of findings.

For mixed-methods studies, consider the rationale for combining methods and whether the quantitative and qualitative findings are meaningfully integrated.

Research ethics and participant protection

Where applicable, assess whether the manuscript adequately reports:

• Approval by a research ethics committee or an appropriately documented exemption.
• Informed consent to participate or an authorized waiver.
• Protection of privacy and confidentiality.
• Safeguards for participants who may be vulnerable.
• Trial registration and relevant protocol information.
• Funding sources, competing interests, and data availability.

Consent to participate in research and consent to publish identifiable clinical information are separate considerations. Concerns about participant protection or missing ethical documentation should be referred to the editor.

Results and analysis

Assess whether the findings are complete, internally consistent, and organized around the study objectives.

For quantitative studies, consider whether the analyses match the design and data; sample sizes and denominators are clear; and estimates, measures of uncertainty, and statistical results are reported appropriately. Interpretation should distinguish statistical significance from clinical or practical importance.

For qualitative studies, consider whether interpretations are adequately supported by the data and whether the presentation reflects the analytical approach.

Any limitations in the reviewer’s ability to assess the analysis should be disclosed to the editor.

Discussion and conclusions

Assess whether the discussion:

• Interprets the findings in relation to the research question and relevant literature.
• Addresses alternative explanations, limitations, and potential bias.
• Explains implications for nursing without overstating their applicability.
• Distinguishes association from causation when the design does not support causal inference.

Conclusions should follow from the reported findings and remain proportionate to the study design, sample, and limitations.

Tables, figures, references, and presentation

Check that tables and figures are necessary, readable, accurately labelled, and consistent with the text. Abbreviations, units, and relevant explanatory notes should be provided.

References should support the claims made and represent relevant evidence fairly, including foundational and recent work where appropriate.

Language and organization should allow readers to understand the work. Reviewers should identify problems that obscure meaning without requiring authors to adopt the reviewer’s personal writing style.

Additional considerations for review articles

Assess the manuscript according to the type of review it claims to report.

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, consider the review question, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategies and dates, study selection, extraction procedures, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis methods. Where a meta-analysis is conducted, examine the justification for pooling and the handling of heterogeneity.

For scoping reviews, consider the alignment between the objectives, eligibility criteria, search methods, selection, charting, and evidence mapping. Critical appraisal should be assessed in relation to the review’s purpose and stated methods.

For narrative or other review approaches, consider the clarity of the purpose, explanation of how literature was identified and selected, balance of coverage, critical analysis, and support for the conclusions. A narrative review should not be assessed as though it necessarily used systematic-review methods.

Additional considerations for case reports

Assess whether the report:

• Presents a clear clinical chronology, assessment, interventions, and outcomes.
• Explains the nursing contribution and relevant learning points.
• Reports appropriate consent for publication and protects patient identity.
• Addresses ethical requirements applicable to the case and setting.
• Discusses limitations and avoids treating a single case as proof of treatment effectiveness.

Reporting guidelines

Reviewers should consult the current reporting guideline appropriate to the study design and article type. Relevant examples available through the EQUATOR Network include:

Study or article type	Relevant reporting guidance
Randomized controlled trials	CONSORT and applicable extensions
Observational studies	STROBE and applicable extensions
Nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral or public health interventions	TREND, where applicable
Qualitative research	SRQR, or COREQ for interviews and focus groups
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses	PRISMA and applicable extensions
Scoping reviews	PRISMA-ScR
Case reports	CARE
Quality improvement studies	SQUIRE

Reporting checklists support assessment of completeness and transparency. They do not replace appraisal of methodological quality or establish that the conclusions are valid.

Preparing and Submitting the Review Report

Review reports should be submitted through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform using the available review form and, where helpful, an anonymized annotated manuscript.

A useful report includes:

1. Overall assessment: A brief account of the manuscript’s purpose, contribution, and principal strengths and limitations.
2. Major comments: Issues affecting the research question, methods, analysis, ethical acceptability, interpretation, or support for the conclusions.
3. Minor comments: Specific improvements to clarity, organization, terminology, tables, figures, or references.
4. Recommendation: A recommendation consistent with the comments and supported by clear reasons.

Comments should identify the relevant section, page, line, table, or figure where possible. Explain why a change is needed and distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions.

Reports must provide substantive assessment. A checklist, a brief statement of approval, or corrections limited to grammar and layout are insufficient on their own.

Confidential comments to the editor may be used for ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or other sensitive matters. Scientific criticisms that authors need to address should also appear in the comments provided to them.

Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their assessment.

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept Submission	The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision. Editorial checks, copyediting, and production requirements may still apply.
Revisions Required — Minor Revision	Limited changes are needed and are unlikely to alter the principal findings or conclusions. The editor determines whether further external assessment is necessary.
Resubmit for Review — Major Revision	Substantial changes are needed to the analysis, reporting, interpretation, or other important aspects. The revised manuscript requires further evaluation and may be returned to reviewers.
Resubmit Elsewhere — Outside Scope	The manuscript is more appropriate for a journal with a different focus or readership. This is advice about suitability and does not authorize transfer of the manuscript or review report.
Decline Submission — Reject	The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of clearly explained scientific, methodological, ethical, or relevance concerns that cannot be adequately resolved through the proposed revision.

A reviewer recommendation does not constitute an editorial decision or a guarantee of acceptance. The editor considers the manuscript, all reviewer reports, the authors’ responses, and the journal’s policies. Additional independent review may be requested when reports differ substantially or specialist expertise is needed.

Submissions involving an editor as an author receive independent handling. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, an independent designated editor manages the submission and makes the final decision.

Reviewing Revisions and Completing the Assignment

When reassessing a revised manuscript, reviewers should examine both the changes and the authors’ point-by-point response. The assessment should identify which concerns have been resolved, which remain, and whether the revisions introduce new problems.

Authors may provide a reasoned explanation for not adopting a suggestion. Reviewers should assess that explanation on its merits.

After submitting a report, reviewers should promptly notify the editor if they discover a significant error in their assessment or a previously unrecognized conflict of interest. Confidentiality obligations continue after the assignment ends, and reviewers should securely delete personal copies of confidential materials once they are no longer required for the authorized review.

The editorial office maintains the review reports, revisions, author responses, and decision records within the journal’s submission system.

Jurnal Keperawatan Komprehensif (Comprehensive Nursing Journal) (JKK) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, independent, constructive, and accountable peer review process. The editorial team monitors the quality and completeness of peer review reports to ensure that manuscript evaluations meet the journal's scientific, methodological, and ethical standards.

4. Quality Assessment of Reviewer Reports

The editorial team periodically evaluates reviewer performance based on scientific expertise, methodological accuracy, depth of critical assessment, relevance and constructiveness of comments, professionalism, and timeliness.

Reviewer reports are expected to provide substantive evaluations of the manuscript's originality, research objectives, study design, sampling procedures, measurement instruments, data analysis, interpretation of findings, scientific contribution, and ethical compliance, as appropriate to the manuscript type.

Comments should identify specific concerns, explain their scientific significance, and provide actionable recommendations for improvement. Reports consisting solely of general approval statements, grammatical corrections, or formatting suggestions without adequate scientific assessment may be considered insufficient. In such cases, the handling editor may request clarification, further evaluation, or an additional independent review.

5. Documentation and Traceability of Peer Review

To ensure transparency and accountability, the editorial office maintains a documented record of the peer review process through Open Journal Systems (OJS).

The documented review history includes reviewer assignments and review reports, editorial decisions and revision requests, authors' point-by-point responses, revised manuscript versions, and subsequent review rounds where applicable.

Each stage of the review process should be traceable through the journal's editorial records. Review reports and editorial decisions are retained as confidential documents and are accessible only to authorised individuals in accordance with the journal's confidentiality and data protection policies.

6. Verification of Manuscript Revisions

Authors receiving revision requests are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

The handling editor evaluates the completeness and adequacy of the revisions, with particular attention to concerns affecting scientific validity, methodological rigour, data interpretation, and the reliability of the conclusions.

When substantial methodological or analytical changes are required, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to additional independent reviewers for further evaluation.

A manuscript is considered for acceptance only after the responsible editor determines that the relevant scientific, methodological, and ethical concerns have been adequately addressed.

7. Editorial Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

The editorial team conducts periodic internal assessments of the peer review process to identify opportunities for improving reviewer selection, the quality of scientific evaluations, editorial decision-making, and revision management.

These assessments may include reviewing the completeness of reviewer reports, the specificity and relevance of scientific comments, the consistency between reviewer recommendations and editorial decisions, and the adequacy of authors' responses to substantive concerns.

Findings from internal assessments are used to strengthen reviewer guidance, improve editorial procedures, and support continuous quality improvement.

8. Confidentiality and Accreditation Documentation

Peer review records, including reviewer reports, authors' responses, revised manuscripts, and editorial decisions, are maintained as confidential editorial evidence.

Where required for authorised internal quality assurance or journal accreditation assessments, relevant documentation may be made available through appropriate and secure procedures while protecting reviewer identities, unpublished information, and confidential editorial correspondence.

JKK is committed to ensuring that its publicly stated peer review policies are supported by authentic, traceable, and appropriately maintained editorial records. Peer review documentation must accurately reflect the review and decision-making processes that were actually conducted.