Reviewer Guideline

There are 2 ways a reviewer can get an account:

  1. Registered by the Journal Manager
  2. Register yourself (on the main menu link "Register")

How to register yourself:

  1. On the main menu, click "Register"
  2. Fill in the registration form, with an asterisk that must be filled in, such as: username, password, repeat password, validation, first name, last name, and email
  3. Don't forget the bottom line, you can also offer yourself as a Reviewer (on the Register As line)
  4. Click Register when finished.

 

NHC JOURNAL-REVIEWER GUIDELINES

These guidelines are provided to assist reviewers in evaluating the scientific quality, clarity, originality, and ethical compliance of manuscripts submitted to the Nurse and Holistic Care Journal. Reviewers are requested to assess each section objectively and provide constructive feedback for improvement.

 

General Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  1. Fits the aims and scope of Nurse and Holistic Care.
  2. Demonstrates originality and contributes meaningfully to nursing and holistic care knowledge.
  3. Is written in clear, academic English with coherent organization.
  4. Adheres to ethical and methodological standards.
  5. Aligns with the author guidelines regarding structure, tables/figures, references, and formatting.

Reviewers should refrain from identifying authors or revealing their own identity (double-blind policy).

 

Section-by-Section Review Checklist

1. Title & Abstract

Review Criteria

  • Is the title concise, specific, and reflective of the study content?
  • Does the abstract follow the required structure (Background, Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusion)?
  • Are the objectives stated clearly?
  • Does the abstract accurately reflect the study’s main findings without overinterpretation?

Reviewer Notes:
(Provide comments on clarity, accuracy, and relevance.)

 

2. Introduction

Review Criteria

  • Does the introduction provide sufficient background and recent evidence?
  • Is the research gap clearly identified and justified?
  • Is the objective(s) clearly stated and aligned with the study design?
  • Is the rationale for conducting the study well-developed?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on relevance, up-to-date literature, clarity.)

 

3. Methods

Review Criteria

  • Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are the population, sampling techniques, and sample size clearly described?
  • Are inclusion and exclusion criteria specified?
  • Are instruments and measures valid, reliable, and clearly explained?
  • Are data collection procedures replicable?
  • Are statistical analyses appropriate and correctly described?
  • Is ethical approval documented and adequate?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on strengths, weaknesses, clarity, bias, ethical adequacy.)

 

4. Results

Review Criteria

  • Are the results presented objectively and clearly?
  • Are tables and figures relevant, well-formatted, and properly referenced?
  • Are statistical results (e.g., p-values, effect sizes, correlations) accurately reported?
  • Are findings presented without interpretation or discussion?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on clarity, completeness, and correctness of reporting.)

 

5. Discussion

Review Criteria

  • Does the discussion interpret results in relation to existing literature?
  • Are comparisons, contradictions, or similarities with previous studies addressed?
  • Are implications for practice, policy, or education clearly discussed?
  • Are strengths and limitations explicitly described?
  • Is the discussion balanced, avoiding overstated claims?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on coherence, depth, relevance.)

 

6. Conclusion

Review Criteria

  • Is the conclusion supported by the study results?
  • Is it concise and aligned with the objective?
  • Are recommendations for practice or future research appropriate?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on precision and relevance.)

 

7. Tables and Figures

Review Criteria

  • Are tables and figures clear, readable, and well-organized?
  • Do they follow the journal’s formatting rules?
  • Are abbreviations or footnotes adequately explained?
  • Are they necessary and not redundant?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on format and quality.)

 

8. References

Review Criteria

  • Are references accurate, complete, and formatted in APA 7th edition?
  • Are citations up-to-date (mostly within the last 10 years)?
  • Are key studies relevant and properly cited?

Reviewer Notes:
(Comment on accuracy, recency, and formatting.)

 

9. Ethical and Scientific Integrity Assessment

Reviewers should verify that:

  • Ethical approval is stated and appropriate for the study design.
  • Informed consent is adequately described.
  • There is no indication of plagiarism, duplication, or unethical research conduct.
  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed if applicable.

 

10. Overall Recommendation

Reviewers must choose one of the following:

  1. Accept without revision
  2. Accept with minor revisions
  3. Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
  4. Reject

Provide a justification for the recommendation, highlighting strengths and weaknesses based on the checklist.

 

NHC REVIEWER FORM