Peer Review Process

Journal of Rural Community Nursing Practice (JRCNP) maintains the standards of double blind-peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All research articles published in the JRCNP undergo full peer review, key characteristics of which are listed below:

Journal of Rural Community Nursing Practice is applying a two-stage process: After the technical check your submission will be first reviewed by the editorial team for publication suitability in the journal. If suitable, it will then be assigned to one of the editors for handling the review and decision process.

If your manuscript matches the scope and satisfies the criteria of Journal of Rural Community Nursing Practice, your paper will be assigned to an Editor. The Editor will identify and contact reviewers who are acknowledged experts in the field. Since peer-review is a voluntary service, it can take some time but please be assured that the Editor will regularly remind reviewers if they do not reply in a timely manner. During this stage, the status will appear as "Under Review".

Once the Editor has received the minimum number of expert reviews, the status will change to "Required Reviews Complete".

It is also possible that the Editor may decide that your manuscript does not meet the journal criteria or scope and that it should not be considered further. In this case, the Editor will immediately notify you that the manuscript has been rejected and may recommend a more suitable journal.

Peer review of referred papers:

Editors of the Journal of Rural Community Nursing Practice will decide promptly whether to accept, reject or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals. Also, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. The authors will be advised when Editors decide, further review is required. Submitted articles will be first review by the editor for the topic and writing style according to the guidelines. All manuscripts are subject to double-blind peer-review, both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process to meet standards of academic excellence. In short, the steps are:

  1. Manuscript Submission (by author).
  2. Manuscript Check and Selection (by manager and editors). 
  3. Editors have a right to directly accept, reject, or review. Prior to further processing steps, plagiarism check using Turnitin is applied for each manuscript.
  4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
  5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewers comments).
  6. Paper Revision (by author)
  7. Revision Submission based on Reviewer Suggestion (by author) with the similar flow to point number 1. 
  8. If the reviewer seems to be satisfied with revision, notification for acceptance (by editor). 
  9. Galley proof and publishing process.

The steps point number 1 to 5 are considered as 1 round of the peer-reviewing process (see the grey area in the figure). The editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions:

  1. Accepted, as it is. The journal will publish the paper in its original form;
  2. Accepted by Minor Revisions, the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections (let authors revised with stipulated time);
  3. Accepted by Major Revisions, the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors (let authors revised with stipulated time);
  4. Resubmit (conditional rejection), the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes;
  5. Rejected (outright rejection), the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.
  1.