STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS
How to perform a proper review for NSC Nursing.
The reviewer’s report should provide a comprehensive critique of the article in short sentences. The report should provide constructive analysis for the authors, especially where revisions are recommended.
Reports should be structured as follows:
1) general commentary on the article
2) major problems
3) minor problems
Reviewers are expected to provide comments not only for the authors but also for the Associate Editor who is handling the article.
In order to correctly assess the articles submitted for review, Reviewers should check whether:
- the type of research developed is valid
- the study needs the approval and/or consent of the Ethics Committee and whether the research is ethical
- the language is clear and understandable
- the abstract is an accurate summary of the research and results
- the introduction is comprehensive and the rationale for the study is clear
- the methods and design of the study are appropriate
- the experiments have appropriate controls
- the reporting of methods, including equipment and materials, is sufficiently detailed to allow for replication of the research
- the sample size is sufficient for a statistically significant study
- the statistical tests used are appropriate and reported correctly
- the figures and tables are clear and represent the results accurately
- previous research relevant to the research being evaluated has been discussed and whether the results obtained by the authors in their own study have been compared with recent results obtained in other studies
- there are inappropriate citations, for example, that do not support the claims or if there are too many citations to the authors’ articles
- the results support the conclusions
- the limitations of the research have been described in an appropriate paragraph.
Reviewers are advised to use the evaluation form available for download from the following link when drafting their comments:
Article evaluation form
Reviewers’ reports should be sent to the editorial board of NSC Nursing at the following address:
When evaluating a scientific article, Reviewers may inform the Associate Editor of one of the following decisions:
1) the article may be published without any modifications or changes
2) the article may be published after minor modifications
3) the article may be published after major modifications
4) the article cannot be published because it has serious shortcomings or is not sufficiently new.
However, it is important to note that the overall decision will be made by the journal’s Scientific Committee.
In addition, for verification of the correct writing of an article, the Reviewer can check the Editorial Standards for Authors in which the international standards for correct writing of different types of articles are described.
Section: “Guidelines for the writing of scientific studies“.
Peer reviewed manuscripts must be kept strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their contents with anyone outside the peer-review process. Reviewers may, upon request to the Editor-in-Chief of NSC Nursing, consult with colleagues in their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript will be maintained by disclosing to the Editor-in-Chief the name(s) of their colleagues in their report.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should refuse to review an article, communicating the reason to the Editor-in-Chief, when they have:
1) a recent publication or current submission with any author
2) a shared affiliation with any author
3) collaborated with any author
4) a financial interest in the subject of the work
5) difficulty in remaining objective in their judgement
NSC Nursing encourages reviewers to help and support authors in improving their manuscript.