Reviewer Guidelines

For Reviewers

The Journal of Rural and Tropical Nursing (JRTN) relies on the expertise and commitment of volunteer peer reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of published research. These guidelines describe the review process, reviewer expectations, and the standards that govern the conduct of peer review at JRTN.

Overview of the Review Process

JRTN uses double-blind peer review. The review proceeds in a structured sequence from submission to final decision.

Step 01

Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated editor assesses each submission for scope suitability, minimum quality, and compliance with the submission requirements before external review is initiated.

Step 02

Reviewer Assignment

Submissions that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer identities are concealed from authors and author identities are concealed from reviewers throughout the process.

Step 03

Review and Recommendation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit a structured assessment with a recommendation. The editorial office monitors reviewer progress and sends reminders when timelines are approaching.

Step 04

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewer assessments and makes a decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The decision and reviewer comments are communicated to the authors.

Step 05

Revision Review

Revised manuscripts are typically returned to the original reviewers for confirmation that the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. The editor may also assess minor revisions independently.

Step 06

Final Decision

A final decision to accept or reject is made after revision review. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production, post-acceptance documentation, and online publication.

JRTN conceals the identities of both authors and reviewers throughout the review.

In double-blind peer review, reviewers are not informed of author identities and authors are not informed of reviewer identities. This arrangement is intended to reduce potential bias and to allow manuscripts to be evaluated on their scholarly merit.

Reviewer Obligations Under Double-Blind Review

Do not attempt to identify the authors from manuscript content, references, or institutional affiliations.
Do not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript under review.
Do not disclose that you are reviewing the manuscript or share its content with any third party.
Notify the editorial office immediately if you believe you have identified the authors or if a conflict of interest becomes apparent.

If Anonymization is Compromised

Inform the editorial office if identifying information appears in the manuscript.
If you recognize the work or the authors, disclose this to the editorial office before proceeding.
The editorial office will determine whether the review should proceed or whether an alternative reviewer is required.

Core Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide timely, fair, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

Respond promptly: accept or decline review invitations as quickly as possible to avoid delays for the authors and the editorial team.

Declare conflicts: decline the invitation if you have a competing interest, a close personal or professional relationship with an author, or any other circumstance that may compromise objectivity.

Read thoroughly: evaluate the manuscript in its entirety, including the methods, results, discussion, references, and all applicable declarations.

Be constructive: provide specific, actionable, and evidence-based comments that help the authors improve the manuscript, regardless of the recommendation.

Maintain confidentiality: treat the manuscript as a confidential document; do not share, discuss, or cite it without the authors' consent and the journal's approval.

Respect deadlines: complete the review within the agreed timeframe. If you are unable to do so, notify the editorial office as early as possible.

Be objective: evaluate manuscripts on their scholarly merit and relevance to JRTN. Personal views about the authors, institutions, or countries must not influence the assessment.

Avoid self-citation: do not recommend citations to your own work unless they are clearly necessary for the scientific completeness of the manuscript.

Scope of the Reviewer's Evaluation

Reviewers assess each manuscript against the criteria described below. Full criteria and scoring guidance are provided in the Review Form.

Scientific Quality

Originality and scholarly contribution of the work.
Soundness and appropriateness of the study design and methodology.
Adequacy and accuracy of statistical or qualitative analysis.
Logical consistency and completeness of the results and discussion.
Accuracy and currency of references and citations.

Relevance and Presentation

Relevance to the rural, tropical, remote, underserved, or resource-limited nursing context.
Clarity, structure, and academic quality of the writing.
Application of the appropriate EQUATOR Network reporting guideline.
Completeness and accuracy of ethical declarations, consent, and registration information.
Quality, labelling, and relevance of tables and figures.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers select one of four standard recommendations and support it with a written assessment.

Accept The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form. Minor editorial corrections, if any, may be noted separately.

Minor Revision The manuscript is broadly sound but requires specific improvements. The revisions should be achievable without a fundamental redesign of the study, analysis, or argument.

Major Revision The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions to its methodology, analysis, argument, or presentation. The revised manuscript will typically be returned for re-review.

Reject The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JRTN due to fundamental limitations in scope, methodology, originality, ethical compliance, or scholarly quality.

Writing Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, respectful, and useful to the authors irrespective of the recommendation.

Effective Comments

Reference specific sections, page numbers, or paragraphs.
Explain clearly why a change is needed, not only that it is needed.
Suggest alternatives or point to relevant evidence where possible.
Distinguish between mandatory changes and optional suggestions.
Maintain a professional, respectful, and scholarly tone throughout.

Comments to Avoid

Vague or generic statements without reference to the manuscript.
Personal, disparaging, or disrespectful remarks about the authors.
Requests for unnecessary additional studies beyond the study's original scope.
Requests to cite your own work unless clearly justified by the manuscript's content.
Confidential comments to the editor that contradict the comments provided to the authors.

Confidential comments to the editor

The review form includes a confidential section for comments intended only for the editor — for example, concerns about ethical compliance, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or significant overlap with other publications. These comments will not be transmitted to the authors.

Review Timeline

Timely reviews are essential for authors waiting for a decision.

Invitation response Please respond to review invitations within a few days of receipt. Prompt responses allow the editorial team to reassign declined invitations without delay.

Review completion Reviews are typically expected within three to four weeks of accepting the invitation. Reviewers are sent reminders as the deadline approaches.

Requesting an extension If you are unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, please notify the editorial office as early as possible. Extensions may be granted when timelines allow.

Unable to review If you decline an invitation, the editorial office appreciates a brief explanation and, where possible, the name of a colleague who may be suitable and willing to review the manuscript.

Reviewer Recognition

JRTN acknowledges the contribution of peer reviewers to the integrity and quality of the journal.

Peer review is a voluntary scholarly service. JRTN acknowledges this contribution by listing reviewers in the journal's annual acknowledgement, subject to the reviewer's consent. Reviewers who complete their reviews on time are prioritized for recognition.

Reviewers may use their completed reviews as evidence of scholarly service in academic portfolios and professional recognition systems. JRTN does not currently provide digital badges or formal reviewer certificates but may introduce such recognition in future volumes.