Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Muhammadiyah Nursing Journal adheres to rigorous peer review standards to ensure scholarly integrity, transparency, and quality. All submissions undergo double-blind peer review (identities of authors and reviewers concealed).

1. Review Process

  • Initial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for completeness, scope, and plagiarism (≤25% similarity via Turnitin). 

  • Reviewer Selection: Editors assign ≥1 independent experts based on:

    • Expertise and publication record in the field.

    • Absence of conflicts of interest (e.g., no collaboration with authors within 3 years).

    • Diversity in geography, gender, and career stage.

  • Timeline: Reviewers must submit reports within 4 weeks. Extensions may be granted upon request.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential; no sharing or use of AI tools to analyze content.

  • Objectivity: Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback. Avoid personal criticism or coercive citation.

  • Conflict Declaration: Disclose any competing interests (financial, institutional, or personal) before accepting invitations.

  • Comprehensive Evaluation: Assess:

    • Originality, methodology rigor, and statistical validity.

    • Clarity, ethical compliance (e.g., informed consent), and adherence to reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE).

3. Editorial Decision

  • Decisions (Accept/Revise/Reject) are based on reviewer feedback but remain at the editor’s discretion.

  • Revise & Resubmit: Authors have 3–6 weeks to address critiques, with point-by-point responses required.

  • Appeals: Rejected manuscripts may be reconsidered if authors provide valid scientific justification.

4. Ethical Compliance

  • Authorship: All listed authors must meet ICMJE criteria; ghost/gift authorship is prohibited.

  • AI Disclosure: Authors must declare AI tool usage in methods; reviewers must not use AI for evaluations.

  • Misconduct: Fabrication, plagiarism, or reviewer fraud will trigger COPE-based investigations, potentially leading to retraction.

5. Post-Review Transparency

  • Published Reviews: Anonymous reviewer reports may accompany accepted articles to enhance transparency.

  • Corrections/Retractions: Errors are corrected via errata; severe breaches result in retraction with public notice.