The Korean Journal of Adult Nursing (KJAN) is a peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing high-quality research in adult nursing. The peer review process is essential for ensuring the scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. KJAN adopts a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the review process. All peer reviewers are expected to adhere to the COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
2. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and credibility of KJAN. Their primary responsibilities include:
• Ensuring Scientific Rigor: Evaluate the manuscript's methodology, originality, and significance in the field of adult nursing.
• Providing Constructive Feedback: Offer detailed, respectful, and actionable comments to help authors improve their work.
• Upholding Ethical Standards: Identify possible ethical concerns such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication.
• Supporting Editorial Decisions: Provide recommendations (e.g., accept, revise, reject) to assist the Editorial Board in decision-making.
• Maintaining Objectivity: Avoid personal bias or subjective judgments unrelated to the manuscript content. The use of reporting guidelines (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/) is recommended for review.
• Mentorship: Offer developmental feedback, especially for early-career authors, to foster academic growth.
3. Ethical guidelines for reviewers
1) Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss any content with third parties without prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief. Uploading manuscripts to generative AI or third-party platforms is strictly prohibited unless authorized.
2) Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must immediately disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or funders. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the review invitation or consult the editorial office.
3) Ethical Vigilance
Reviewers should report concerns about research misconduct or ethical violations to the Editor-in-Chief. KJAN follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/guidance) to address such issues.
4. How to Write Review Comments
After logging into the e-submission system using your ID and password, please download the PDF files and any supplementary files. While it is not necessary to comment on the style and format of the paper, reviewers should focus on assessing the scientific soundness and logical interpretation of the results. Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on:
• Originality and importance of the research question
• Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology and statistical analysis
• Clarity and logic of results and discussion
• Compliance with research and publication ethics
• Quality of writing, organization, and presentation
• Coherence among title, objectives, findings, and conclusions
You will be asked to provide one of four recommended decisions for the manuscript:
• Accept. The manuscript is acceptable for publication as is or it requires only minimal revisions/clarifications and does not need to be re-reviewed.
• Minor Revision. The manuscript is likely to be accepted after authors address requests for revision that do not involve major re-working of the data analysis and presentation or of the organization and text of the manuscript.
• Major Revision. The manuscript may possibly be accepted with major revisions. The manuscript is promising but needs major revisions and, in the judgment of the reviewer, may be unacceptable depending on the responses of the authors to the review. If the reviewer feels that ratings of novelty and importance will not improve even if the manuscript is adequately revised, the decision should be Reject, not Major Revision.
• Reject. The manuscript is not of sufficient quality, novelty or importance to warrant publication.
5. Timeline and Communication
• Reviewers must respond to review invitations within 5 days to accept or decline.
• Upon acceptance, reviews should be completed and submitted within 14 days.
• Reviewers may request an extension if additional time is needed.
• If a review is not submitted by the deadline, the assignment may be retracted and reassigned.
6. Use of AI Tools in Review
Use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude) in manuscript review is not permitted unless explicitly approved by the KJAN editorial office. If approved, AI-assisted content must be reviewed and finalized by the reviewer, and its use must be transparently disclosed in the review comments.
7. Appointment
• Reviewers are appointed for a 2-year term, renewable based on performance.
• Performance is periodically evaluated based on quality, timeliness, and professionalism.
• Reviewers who violate ethical or review conduct guidelines may be suspended or removed.
E-SUBMISSION
