Peer Review

Policy Statement

All scholarly submissions to PJN, except content explicitly designated by the journal as non-peer-reviewed (such as the President's Message and selected invited editorial material), undergo double-anonymized peer review. The journal clearly identifies which article types are peer reviewed and which are not.

Manuscripts proceeding to external review are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise, selected on the basis of expertise, independence, availability, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. Editorial Board members do not routinely serve as external reviewers; where their expertise is exceptionally required, the relationship and conflict safeguards are managed transparently.

Reviewers assess a manuscript's originality, relevance, methodological or analytical rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, reporting quality, and contribution to nursing and health scholarship, and provide a reasoned recommendation of accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the final editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief, or an appropriately designated unconflicted editor, makes the final editorial decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, and applicable PJN policies. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review when necessary. PJN aims to provide a first editorial decision within 8 to 10 weeks of submission, subject to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and any need for additional review or ethical clarification, and monitors turnaround times, communicating material delays to authors.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors under PJN's double-anonymized model. Reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential, must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, and must not upload submitted manuscripts or confidential editorial materials to public or unauthorized generative-AI platforms or other external systems that could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data protection.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining the grounds for appeal; where practicable, appeals are considered by an editor not involved in the original decision.

1. Scope and Applicability

This policy applies to all manuscripts that pass initial screening and proceed to peer review, and to every reviewer, handling editor, and the Editor-in-Chief, for the full life of a manuscript from review assignment through final decision, including any subsequent appeal.

2. Definitions

Double-anonymized (Double-blind) Review: A review process in which neither the author's nor the reviewer's identity is disclosed to the other party.

Handling Editor: The Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief responsible for managing a specific manuscript through the review process.

Appeal: A written request from an author asking PJN to reconsider a specific editorial decision.