Peer Review Process

Editorial Policies

The Journal of Rural and Tropical Nursing (JRTN) subjects all submitted manuscripts to rigorous double-blind peer review before a publication decision is made. This page describes the review model, each stage of the process, and the criteria applied at editorial screening.

Review Model

Type Double-Blind
Minimum Reviewers Two independent
Review Standard COPE guidelines

JRTN uses double-blind peer review. Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors at any stage of the review process. Authors are required to remove all identifying information from the manuscript before submission.

Review Stages

Stage 1 — Editorial Screening All submissions are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor for scope suitability, minimum quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are returned without external review.
Stage 2 — Reviewer Assignment Submissions that pass screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter, study design, and clinical or population context.
Stage 3 — External Review Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the structured JRTN review form and submit a recommendation. The editorial office monitors progress and issues reminders as deadlines approach.
Stage 4 — Editorial Decision The Editor-in-Chief considers all reviewer assessments and makes a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The decision letter and reviewer comments are communicated to the corresponding author.
Stage 5 — Revision and Re-review Authors submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments. Major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers. Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor.
Stage 6 — Final Decision and Production A final accept or reject decision is communicated to the authors. Accepted manuscripts proceed to post-acceptance documentation, copyediting, and online publication.

Editorial Screening Criteria

Manuscripts that do not meet all of the following criteria may be returned at the screening stage without external review.

Scope: the manuscript addresses nursing or healthcare in a rural, tropical, remote, underserved, agricultural, or resource-limited context as defined in the journal's Aims, Focus and Scope.

Minimum quality: the manuscript demonstrates a level of scholarly quality sufficient to warrant external review, including a clearly stated aim, an appropriate methodology, and interpretable results.

Ethical compliance: the manuscript includes the required ethics and consent declarations, or provides a justified explanation for their absence, as appropriate for the study type.

Submission requirements: all three required files are present (anonymized manuscript, title page, and cover letter), and the manuscript is prepared using the official JRTN article template.

Originality: the manuscript does not appear to be previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal.

Editorial Decisions

Accept The manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form. Minor editorial corrections may still be required during production.
Minor Revision The manuscript requires specific, achievable improvements. Authors submit a revised manuscript and a response to reviewer comments.
Major Revision Substantial revisions are required. The revised manuscript is typically returned to the original reviewers for re-assessment.
Reject The manuscript is not suitable for publication. Authors may be invited to resubmit only if the editor explicitly indicates this in the decision letter.
All editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and inform but do not determine the final decision.

Appeals

Authors who believe a rejection decision was based on a factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or a procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal to the editorial office. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the reviewers' or editor's scientific judgement are not considered. Full details are available on the Complaints and Appeals page.