Your expertise and time are invaluable to us. This guide is intended to assist you in providing a comprehensive and constructive review for the Ninevah Journal of Nursing and Midwifery (NJNM).
Invitation to Review
Manuscripts submitted to NJNM are reviewed by at least two experts. These may be volunteer reviewers, members of our Reviewer Board, or reviewers suggested by the academic editor during the preliminary check. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of the manuscript and to provide a clear recommendation to the editors on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
We ask invited reviewers to:
- Accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract).
- Suggest alternative reviewers if an invitation must be declined, if possible.
- Request a deadline extension as soon as possible if more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please consider the following:
- Q1) Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality, informed review.
- Q2) Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? This includes recent collaborations with the author(s), direct competition, financial interests, or any other relationship that could bias your judgment. Please disclose any potential conflicts to the editor when you respond.
- Q3) Do you have sufficient time? Reviewing requires dedicated attention. Before you commit, please ensure you can meet the specified deadline.
How to Peer Review for NJNM?
The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of more than a few brief sentences. NJNM does not mandate a specific structure for reports; however, we suggest the following format:
- Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript's aims, methods, key findings, and your overall impression.
- Major Issues: Significant concerns regarding the study's conceptualization, methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethical soundness, or presentation that would need to be addressed for the paper to be considered for publication.
- Minor Issues: Smaller points related to clarity, grammar, formatting (though focus primarily on content), or areas that could be improved with minor adjustments.
We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscript. The report should provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor.
While expectations vary by discipline and methodology, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers for NJNM may include:
- Relevance and Significance: Does the work address an important issue in nursing, midwifery, healthcare, or health education? Does it contribute new knowledge or insights? Is it relevant to NJNM's Aims & Scope, including its focus on the Middle East, developing countries, and global health?
- Research Question/Aims: Are the research questions or study aims clear, focused, and appropriate?
- Literature Review: Is the existing literature adequately reviewed? Is there a clear rationale for the study based on current knowledge?
- Methodology and Study Design:
- Is the chosen study design (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, systematic review, quality improvement project) appropriate for the research question/aims?
- Are the methods described with sufficient detail to allow for understanding, replication (if applicable), or assessment of rigor?
- For quantitative studies: Is the sample size justified? Are sampling methods appropriate? Are data collection instruments valid and reliable?
- For qualitative studies: Is the sampling strategy appropriate? Are data collection methods well-described? Are strategies to ensure trustworthiness (e.g., credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) evident?
- Are interventions (if any) clearly described and consistently implemented?
- Ethical Considerations: Has appropriate ethical approval been obtained? Is informed consent adequately addressed? Are participant confidentiality and anonymity protected? Are vulnerable populations appropriately considered?
- Data Analysis: Are the statistical methods (for quantitative studies) or analytical approaches (for qualitative studies) appropriate and correctly applied and reported?
- Results/Findings: Are the results or findings presented clearly, concisely, and logically? Do the figures and tables accurately represent the data and are they easy to understand?
- Discussion: Is the interpretation of results/findings balanced and supported by the data? Are the findings discussed in relation to existing literature? Are strengths and limitations of the study acknowledged?
- Conclusions: Are the conclusions justified by the results/findings? Do they answer the research question(s) or meet the study aims? Are implications for nursing/midwifery practice, education, policy, or future research clearly stated?
- Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written? Is the language precise and understandable?
- Abstract: Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarize the study's background, aims, methods, key findings, and conclusions?
- Citations: Is the referencing appropriate, accurate, and does it support the claims made? Are there any concerns about excessive self-citation or biased citation practices?
To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via our manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Please contact the NJNM editorial office if you anticipate being unable to meet the deadline.
We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scholarly aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. Comments on novelty and the potential impact of the work on nursing, midwifery, or healthcare are also highly valued.
At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
- Accept (The paper is suitable for publication in its current form or with very minor copyediting.)
- Minor Revision (The paper is largely sound but requires minor clarifications or amendments that can be addressed without substantial re-working.)
- Major Revision (The paper has potential but requires significant revisions to address substantial concerns regarding methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.)
- Reject (The paper has serious flaws, lacks originality or significance, or is outside the scope of the journal.)
Review Reports
Please consider the following guidelines for your report:
- Read the entire manuscript carefully, including any supplementary material, paying close attention to the research design, methods, data, results, and discussion.
- Critically analyze the article as a whole, as well as specific sections and key concepts.
- Ensure your comments are detailed, specific, and constructive, enabling authors to understand and address the points you raise.
- Reviewers must not recommend citation of their own work, that of close colleagues, another author, or the journal itself unless it is clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. Avoid any appearance of coercive citation.
- Maintain a professional and neutral tone. Focus on providing constructive criticism. Derogatory or inflammatory comments will not be tolerated.
Your review report should ideally contain:
- A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions, and its strengths.
- General Comments:
- For Research Articles/Case Studies/Short Reports: Highlight overall strengths and weaknesses, the rigor of the methodology, ethical considerations, the validity of the findings, and the importance of the contribution to nursing or midwifery.
- For Systematic Reviews/Evidence-Based Practice Papers: Comment on the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, the clarity of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the quality assessment of included studies, the synthesis of findings, and the relevance to practice or policy.
- Specific Comments: Refer to specific page numbers, line numbers, sections, tables, or figures. Point out inaccuracies, areas lacking clarity, or methodological concerns. Focus on the scholarly content; while you can note significant language issues that impede understanding, extensive copyediting is not the primary role of the peer reviewer.
General questions to help guide your review report for research articles:
- Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field of nursing/midwifery, and presented in a well-structured manner?
- Are the cited references appropriate, up-to-date where necessary, and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations or an unbalanced representation of literature?
- Is the manuscript methodologically sound, and is the research design appropriate to address the stated aims or research questions?
- Are the manuscript’s methods described in sufficient detail to understand how the study was conducted and to assess its rigor?
- Are figures/tables used effectively? Do they clearly present the data? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
- Are ethical considerations (e.g., IRB/REC approval, informed consent, confidentiality) adequately addressed and reported? Are data availability statements (if applicable) appropriate?
General questions to help guide your review report for review articles:
- Is the review clear, comprehensive, and relevant to the field of nursing/midwifery? Does it identify a clear gap in knowledge or synthesize existing knowledge in a valuable way?
- Was a similar review published recently? If so, does this current review offer a new perspective, cover different aspects, or provide a more robust synthesis?
- Are the cited references comprehensive and relevant? Are any key relevant citations omitted? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?
- Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherent and well-supported by the cited literature?
- Are any figures/tables used effectively and easy to understand?
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript or discuss its content with anyone outside the peer review process, except with prior permission from the NJNM editorial office (e.g., if mentoring a junior colleague in the review process, in which case the colleague’s name should be disclosed to the editor). Any ideas or information obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they:
- Have a recent or current significant professional or personal connection with any of the authors.
- Have a direct financial interest in the subject of the work or its publication.
- Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
- Feel unable to provide an objective and unbiased review for any other reason.
If you are unsure whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest, please contact the NJNM editorial office for guidance. It is always best to disclose any potential conflicts.