Peer Review Process

Ninevah Journal of Public Health & Nursing

The Ninevah Journal of Public Health & Nursing (NJPHN) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, fairness, confidentiality, and ethical standards throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief to evaluate:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Originality and scientific contribution
• Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
• Ethical considerations and research integrity
• Language quality and clarity of presentation
• Similarity/plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to authors for technical revision or rejected before peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

NJPHN employs a double-blind peer-review system, in which:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This process helps ensure objectivity, impartiality, and academic fairness.

Each eligible manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant academic or clinical expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Scientific originality and significance
• Methodological rigor and validity
• Ethical standards and approvals
• Clarity of objectives and research questions
• Appropriateness of statistical analyses
• Quality of discussion and interpretation
• Relevance to nursing, public health, or healthcare practice
• Quality of writing, organization, tables, and figures
• Compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, TREND, etc.)

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewers’ comments and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Reject

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to:

• Submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeline
• Provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments
• Highlight changes made in the revised manuscript

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

The journal follows ethical publishing principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Any cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research conduct, or conflicts of interest will be handled according to international ethical guidelines.

Review Timeline

NJPHN aims to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within approximately:

• 2–4 weeks for initial peer-review decisions
• Additional time may be required depending on revisions and reviewer availability

The journal strives to maintain an efficient and timely review process while ensuring scientific quality and integrity.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal written explanation to the Editorial Office. Appeals will be reviewed independently by the editorial team, and additional reviewers may be consulted when appropriate.

Open Access and Publication Ethics

Accepted manuscripts are published under an open-access model to support the global dissemination of scientific knowledge and healthcare research without subscription barriers.