Peer Review Policy & Process

Java Nursing Journal (JNJ)

Double-Blind Review

Java Nursing Journal (JNJ) employs a rigorous double-blind review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Preprint Transparency: The journal allows the submission of manuscripts previously shared on preprint servers. In such cases, while reviewers might inadvertently identify authors through online searches, the process remains officially double-blinded. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript based solely on the submitted version without seeking author identities.

Submissions meeting journal standards are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Note: Letters to editors and editorials are not subjected to peer review, as described in the editorial process and section policy.

Submission Requirements for Anonymity

Title page (with author details): Includes title, names, affiliations, emails, acknowledgments, funding, and conflict declarations.
Blinded manuscript (no author details): Main body, references, figures, and tables must not contain identifying information.
Preprint Disclosure: Authors must disclose any preprint DOI in the cover letter or submission metadata. This information is kept from reviewers.

Review Process & Decisions

Reviewers provide objective assessments considering study relevance, scientific content, and language. While reviewers recommend a path, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision:

Accept Submission
Suitable for publication; proceed to copyediting.

Revisions Required
Minor revisions approved by the editor.

Resubmit for Review
Major revisions; requires new peer review.

Decline / Reject
Significant weaknesses; not suitable.

Generative AI Policy

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. This violates confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data privacy. Reviewers are accountable for their report content. Where use is suspected, the journal reserves the right to reject the report.

However, reviewers are permitted to use AI tools strictly for local language polishing, grammar checking, or phrasing refinement of their own originally written review text, provided no proprietary manuscript text is included in the prompt.

Permitted: Using local or secure AI tools to proofread or refine the reviewer’s own drafted feedback, ensuring no copyrighted or confidential manuscript excerpts are entered into the tool.

Prohibited: Uploading, inputting, or processing any part of the original manuscript text via third-party AI platforms.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

JNJ adheres to COPE Ethical Guidelines. Reviewers are expected to:

Only review within their expertise and assess promptly.
Respect confidentiality and evaluate the work objectively, even if author identity is discovered via a preprint server.
Declare all potential conflicts of interest.
Remain impartial; avoid hostile or defamatory personal remarks.
Conduct a fair share of reviews in a timely manner.
Avoid impersonating others during the review process, which constitutes a serious offense.

Suspected Misconduct: Investigated per COPE Best Practice Guidelines.

Reviewer Acknowledgment & Credits

Each reviewer qualifies for third-party certification and credits via Reviewer Credits. These credits can be used in their online store. To obtain certificates, reviewers may register for a free account through the Reviewer Credits platform.

JNJ is certified on ReviewerCredits.

Reviewers may receive formal recognition of their peer-review activities through the Reviewer Credits platform, allowing their contribution to scholarly peer review to be documented and acknowledged.

```