Peer Review Process

Manuscript Submission

The author uploads the manuscript through the NEPJ submission portal. The submitted manuscript and required documents are assessed for completeness and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements. A PDF version may be generated through the publishing system when applicable.

Editorial Desk Review

The Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor conducts an initial editorial desk review to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for further consideration. The assessment includes compliance with formatting and submission requirements, alignment with the aims and scope of NEPJ, scholarly or research quality, contribution and significance to nursing education, practice, and research, and applicable ethical and editorial requirements.

Manuscripts with incomplete formatting or submission requirements may be returned to the corresponding author for correction. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic editorial or scholarly criteria may be declined. Where applicable, a manuscript deemed not to meet the criteria by at least two members of the Editorial Team may be declined or recommended for submission to another appropriate journal.

Selection and Assignment of Peer Reviewers

Two (2) peer reviewers are selected based on their subject-matter expertise and the relevance of their qualifications to the manuscript. Reviewers are screened for potential conflicts of interest before assignment.

The manuscript is forwarded to the selected reviewers through the PKP Reviewer Dashboard. The double-blind review arrangement is maintained throughout the process. Authors may suggest potential reviewers through the submission portal when permitted; however, reviewer selection remains the responsibility of the editorial team.

Full Peer Review

Peer reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript based on its relevance and significance, originality and contribution, study design and methodology, statistical analysis when applicable, interpretation and presentation of findings, ethical considerations, organization and clarity, and overall suitability for publication in NEPJ.

Reviewers submit their comments, observations, and recommendations through the PKP Reviewer Dashboard and may provide comments directly on the blinded manuscript when appropriate. Each review must be completed and submitted within seven (7) calendar days from acceptance of the review invitation.

Reviewer Recommendation

Peer reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

A recommendation for major revision indicates that substantial changes are required. Under the NEPJ editorial decision structure, manuscripts requiring major revision will be rejected rather than processed as a routine major-revision cycle. Where appropriate, the authors may substantially revise the work and submit it as a new manuscript, subject to a new editorial and peer review process.

Revision and Author Response

The assigned editor consolidates the peer review comments and communicates the editorial decision and required revisions to the corresponding author. When revisions are requested, the author submits the revised manuscript together with an Author Response to Reviewers explaining how each substantive comment was addressed and providing a reasoned response where the author does not adopt a particular recommendation.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original peer reviewers for further evaluation. The seven (7) calendar-day review period applies to each subsequent peer review. If an original reviewer is unavailable, the editor may assign another qualified blinded reviewer.

Final Editorial Decision

The assigned editor makes the final editorial decision after considering the peer reviewers’ recommendations, the revised manuscript, the author’s responses, and the manuscript’s overall suitability for publication.

When substantial disagreement exists among reviewers, the editor may seek clarification, request an additional review, or refer the matter to the Editor-in-Chief for resolution. The final editorial decision rests with the authorized NEPJ editor and is not determined solely by an individual reviewer’s recommendation.

Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the Technical Editor for technical preparation and copyediting, as applicable, after which layout and production are undertaken.

Publication and Indexing

Following acceptance and completion of the required editorial and production processes, the article is scheduled for publication in NEPJ and published through the journal’s OJS/PKP platform. A DOI is assigned, and the article may be submitted to applicable indexing, abstracting, repository, and digital preservation services in accordance with the journal’s policies and agreements.

Post-Publication Corrections

Corrections to published articles are handled according to the nature and source of the error. An erratum is issued for an error introduced by the journal or publisher, while a corrigendum is issued for an error attributable to the author.

Requests for corrections are submitted to the Editorial Office and reviewed by the editors, with consultation with the authors when appropriate. Approved corrections are published as a correction notice linked to the original article, and the online article is updated with a clear indication of the correction and its date. Retractions or expressions of concern, when necessary, are handled in accordance with the journal’s retraction policy and applicable COPE guidance.