Peer Review Process

BJNHS applies a rigorous and impartial double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

BJNHS are eager to provide a rapid publication process through an initial assessment conducted by an editorial committee consisting of the editorial team members. The primary purpose is to decide whether to send the paper for peer-review or to reject it. The main point is scope, compliance with the guideline, and language. Sometimes a paper will be returned to the author with a request for revisions with the purpose to help editors in deciding whether or not to send it out for review. Authors may expect the decision of the Initial Editorial Assessment from this stage of the review process within 1-2 weeks of submission.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or rejected without external peer review.

The journal also use similarity-detection software (Turnitin or iThenticate) to identify potentially unattributed material, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or inappropriate text reuse. A similarity report is used as an editorial assessment tool and is not the sole basis for making a decision. Editors will evaluate the location, nature, context, and extent of any identified similarity.

2. Reviewer Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area and research methodology. All reviewing process is done by the double-blind review, which means the authors and peer-reviewers do not know each other's identity. The reviewers should complete the review within three weeks in each reviewing round after the review request was sent. Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest must decline the invitation. Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance;

  • Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope;

  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives;

  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methods;

  • Adequacy of ethical safeguards;

  • Accuracy and transparency of data presentation;

  • Appropriateness of the analysis;

  • Consistency between results, discussion, and conclusions;

  • Contribution to nursing and health sciences;

  • Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines; and

  • Overall clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

3. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept submission;

  • Revisions required;

  • Resubmit for review;

  • Decline submission; or

  • Submit elsewhere.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor. Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and contribution to the field.

4. Revision

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  • A revised manuscript;

  • A detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer’s comment; and

  • A clear indication of the changes made in the manuscript.

Authors should respond professionally and provide a scientific justification when they choose not to implement a reviewer’s recommendation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

5. Final Processing

Accepted manuscripts will undergo copyediting, language editing where necessary, layout preparation, author proofreading, and final publication.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not prevent the journal from taking appropriate action if ethical, legal, or scientific concerns are identified before or after publication