REVIEW PROCESS POLICY

JURNAL KEPERAWATAN BUNDA DELIMA (JKBD)

1. General Statement

Jurnal Keperawatan Bunda Delima (JKBD), published by Akademi Keperawatan Bunda Delima, is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific quality, academic integrity, objectivity, and transparency throughout the manuscript review and publication process.

JKBD implements a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that published articles make meaningful contributions to the advancement of nursing science, evidence-based nursing practice, healthcare education, and related health sciences.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts that satisfy the journal's requirements and are considered suitable for further evaluation are subjected to independent peer review.

The journal follows internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including recommendations established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Peer Review Model

JKBD applies a Double-Anonymized Peer Review system, also commonly referred to as Double-Blind Peer Review.

Under this system:

  1. The identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers.

  2. The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

  3. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently based on their scientific quality and academic merit.

  4. Editorial decisions are made objectively, without inappropriate influence from personal, institutional, financial, or professional interests.

  5. All parties involved in the review process are required to maintain appropriate confidentiality.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are generally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

3. Initial Manuscript Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JKBD undergo an initial administrative and editorial screening before being assigned to external reviewers.

The editorial team examines:

  1. Compliance with the journal's aims and scope.

  2. Adherence to manuscript preparation guidelines and the official journal template.

  3. Completeness of the manuscript and supporting documents.

  4. Originality and scientific relevance of the submitted research.

  5. Appropriateness of the research design and methodology.

  6. Compliance with applicable publication ethics requirements.

  7. Availability of ethical approval and informed consent information, where required.

  8. Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that fail to meet essential requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without external peer review.

4. Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Following the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript to determine whether it is suitable for external peer review.

The assessment considers:

  1. Relevance to nursing and healthcare research.

  2. Originality and significance of the study.

  3. Clarity of research objectives.

  4. Scientific and methodological quality.

  5. Reliability of the research findings.

  6. Ethical compliance.

  7. Potential contribution to evidence-based nursing practice and healthcare improvement.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, demonstrate insufficient scientific quality, or raise serious ethical concerns may be rejected at this stage.

5. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts approved for external review are generally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  1. Expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

  2. Experience in nursing, healthcare, or related research.

  3. Ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations.

  4. Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.

  5. Availability to complete the review within the requested period.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

If a reviewer is unable to provide an impartial evaluation, the reviewer must decline the invitation or notify the editor.

6. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submitted manuscripts according to established academic and scientific standards.

The review criteria include:

6.1. Originality and Scientific Contribution

The manuscript should present original findings or scholarly contributions that advance knowledge in nursing and healthcare.

6.2. Relevance to the Journal's Scope

The manuscript must address topics relevant to nursing science, clinical nursing practice, nursing education, community health, or related health sciences.

6.3. Research Objectives

The research questions and objectives should be clearly formulated and scientifically relevant.

6.4. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

The manuscript should demonstrate an appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundation supported by relevant scientific literature.

6.5. Research Methodology

The research design, sampling methods, instruments, data collection procedures, and analytical techniques must be appropriate to the study objectives.

6.6. Data Analysis and Interpretation

The analysis must be accurate, transparent, and appropriate for the research design. Interpretations should be supported by the findings.

6.7. Results and Discussion

The results should be presented clearly, and the discussion should explain their significance in relation to existing scientific evidence.

6.8. Conclusions

The conclusions must be consistent with the study objectives, methods, and findings.

6.9. Research Ethics

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical requirements, including ethical approval, informed consent, and participant confidentiality where required.

6.10. References and Academic Writing

References must be relevant, accurate, and properly cited. The manuscript should demonstrate clear academic writing and logical organization.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for providing objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations.

Reviewers must:

  1. Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

  2. Evaluate manuscripts fairly and without personal bias.

  3. Provide scientifically justified comments and recommendations.

  4. Identify significant methodological or analytical weaknesses.

  5. Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism or research misconduct.

  6. Avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

  7. Disclose potential conflicts of interest.

  8. Complete the review within the assigned timeframe or inform the editor of anticipated delays.

  9. Refrain from requesting unnecessary citations that do not contribute to the manuscript's scientific quality.

  10. Respect the intellectual property and confidentiality of the authors.

Reviewer comments should focus on improving scientific quality and should not contain inappropriate personal criticism.

8. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewers' recommendations and the editor's independent assessment, the editorial team may issue one of the following decisions:

8.1. Accept Submission

The manuscript meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards and is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary final editorial preparation.

8.2. Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited modifications, such as clarification of specific sections, improvement of presentation, or correction of minor methodological or editorial issues.

8.3. Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvements involving research methods, data analysis, interpretation, discussion, or other significant scientific aspects.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to additional reviewers.

8.4. Reject Submission

The manuscript is rejected because it does not meet the journal's scientific or ethical standards, falls outside the journal's scope, or contains fundamental weaknesses that cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations, while the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

9. Manuscript Revision Process

Authors who receive a revision decision must carefully address the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors.

Revised submissions should include:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript.

  2. A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

  3. Clear explanations of changes made to the manuscript.

  4. Scientific justification for any reviewer recommendations that have not been adopted.

Authors are expected to respond professionally and provide sufficient information to support the revised manuscript.

The editorial team may request additional revisions when necessary.

10. Re-Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional evaluation to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' and editors' concerns.

The editor may:

  1. Evaluate the revised manuscript directly.

  2. Return the manuscript to the original reviewers.

  3. Invite additional reviewers when specialized expertise is required.

  4. Request further clarification or additional revisions.

Acceptance is not guaranteed following revision. The final decision depends on the scientific quality of the revised manuscript and its compliance with the journal's requirements.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the responsible editor or Editor-in-Chief.

The decision is based on:

  1. Scientific merit and originality.

  2. Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

  3. Reviewers' reports and recommendations.

  4. Adequacy of manuscript revisions.

  5. Methodological rigor and reliability of findings.

  6. Compliance with research ethics and publication standards.

  7. Overall suitability for publication.

The editor may seek additional expert opinions when reviewer recommendations differ substantially or when unresolved scientific concerns remain.

Editorial decisions must be independent, fair, and based on academic merit.

12. Review Timeline

JKBD aims to conduct the editorial and peer-review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards.

The journal generally applies the following timeline:

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Conducted after manuscript submission and administrative verification.

  • Peer Review Period: Reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluations within approximately four weeks.

  • Manuscript Revision: The revision period depends on the extent of the required changes and the deadline communicated by the editor.

  • Editorial Decision: The overall editorial decision process generally takes approximately one to three months from initial submission.

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of revision rounds, and the responsiveness of the authors.

The stated timeline is an estimate and does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specific issue.

13. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts submitted to JKBD are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content, research data, or confidential correspondence without appropriate authorization.

JKBD is committed to preventing:

  1. Plagiarism and duplicate publication.

  2. Data fabrication and falsification.

  3. Manipulation of the peer-review process.

  4. Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  5. Unethical research involving human participants.

  6. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

  7. Inappropriate editorial or reviewer influence.

Suspected ethical violations will be assessed in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and relevant COPE recommendations.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional relationships that could compromise their impartiality.

Editors must not handle manuscripts when a conflict of interest prevents an independent assessment.

Manuscripts submitted by editorial board members or individuals with close professional relationships to editors must be evaluated through an independent editorial process.

Reviewers must decline assignments when they cannot provide an objective evaluation.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe an editorial decision involved a significant factual or procedural error.

Appeals should include:

  1. The manuscript title and identification number.

  2. The editorial decision being challenged.

  3. A clear explanation of the grounds for appeal.

  4. Relevant supporting evidence.

Appeals will be assessed in accordance with the journal's complaints and appeals procedures.

An appeal does not automatically result in reconsideration or acceptance of a rejected manuscript.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, conflicts of interest, or research integrity may be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

16. Post-Acceptance Editorial Process

Following acceptance, manuscripts undergo the necessary publication preparation procedures, which may include:

  1. Copyediting.

  2. Proofreading.

  3. Layout and formatting.

  4. Verification of bibliographic metadata.

  5. Final publication checks.

  6. Scheduling for an upcoming journal issue.

Acceptance does not automatically guarantee publication in a particular issue.

The publication schedule depends on manuscript readiness, editorial requirements, and the journal's publication calendar.

17. Review Process Transparency

JKBD is committed to maintaining a transparent and accountable peer-review process.

The journal provides publicly accessible information regarding its peer-review model, editorial procedures, manuscript evaluation criteria, and publication ethics requirements.

Editorial records and reviewer reports are managed confidentially through the journal's editorial system.

JKBD periodically reviews its peer-review procedures to support continuous improvement in scientific quality, editorial effectiveness, and publication integrity.

18. Policy References

This Review Process Policy is guided by the following sources:

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

  2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices.

  3. Jurnal Keperawatan Bunda Delima (JKBD). Peer Review Policy.

  4. Jurnal Keperawatan Bunda Delima (JKBD). Publication Ethics Policy.

  5. Jurnal Keperawatan Bunda Delima (JKBD). Publication Frequency Policy.

Jurnal Keperawatan Bunda Delima (JKBD) is committed to ensuring a fair, independent, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process that promotes scientific excellence, research integrity, and the advancement of nursing and healthcare knowledge.