Peer Review Policy & Process

Double-blind review

Belitung Nursing Journal employs a rigorous double-blind review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential from each other. Submissions that meet the journal's standards will be sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers or external reviewers for evaluation of scientific quality. Ultimately, the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles rests with the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief.

In the unlikely event of any delays, the Managing Editor may request editorial board members to review the articles. Alternatively, the authors may be invited to suggest reviewers or withdraw the manuscript from submission.

It should be noted that letters to editors and editorials are not subjected to peer review. This is also described in the editorial process and section policy

To facilitate the double-blind review, authors are required to submit the following separately:

  • Title page (with author details): This should include the article title, authors' names and affiliations (including email addresses), acknowledgments, funding sources, declaration of conflicting interests, and a complete address for the corresponding author.
  • Blinded manuscript (no author details):The main body of the paper, including references, figures, and tables, should not contain any information that could identify the authors or their affiliations.
  • Supplementary materials are also subject to peer review.


Peer review process

When invited to review a journal article, each reviewer will receive an email containing hyperlink invitation responses. Clicking the appropriate hyperlink will send the response to the journal's editorial office, indicating whether or not the reviewer is able to review the article. If the reviewer accepts the offer, they can download the manuscript and complete a Manuscript Review Form, which typically allows for a free-form response.

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective and critical assessment of the manuscript, taking into consideration factors such as the concept of the study, its relevance to current scientific knowledge, scientific content, language, and grammar. Offensive language in the comments is not acceptable.

Although each reviewer is expected to provide an initial decision or recommendation regarding the manuscript's acceptance or rejection, the final decision is ultimately made by the Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief. The decision can be one of the following:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication without further revisions and can proceed to the copyediting stage.
  • Revisions Required: Minor revisions are needed, which can be reviewed and approved by the editor.
  • Resubmit for Review: Major revisions are needed, requiring another round of peer review.
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit the journal's focus and scope and may be more suitable for submission to another publication.
  • Decline or Reject Submission: The manuscript has significant weaknesses and is not suitable for publication in the journal.
COPE has established Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which set out the fundamental principles and standards that all peer reviewers should adhere to during the peer-review process. These guidelines can be found here.

Peer reviewers are also expected to:

  • Only agree to review manuscripts that they have the necessary subject expertise to assess thoroughly and can evaluate promptly.
  • Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not disclose any manuscript details or reviews beyond those released by the journal.
  • Not utilize information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other individual's or organization's benefit or to harm or discredit others.
  • Declare all potential conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • Remain impartial and constructive in their reviews, avoiding being hostile or inflammatory and making defamatory or insulting personal remarks.
  • Recognize that peer review is essentially a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to conduct their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner.
  • Provide BNJ with accurate personal and professional information that reflects their expertise.
  • Understand that impersonating another individual during the review process is a serious offense.

Cases of suspected misconduct
Allegations of misconduct or cases of suspected misconduct are investigated in accordance with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines as far as is practicable.

Each reviewer will be qualified for the third-party certification provided by Reviewer Credits and assigned credits which may be used on the Reviewer Credits online store. To get the certificates, each reviewer should register a free Reviewer Credits account here.