Journal of Nursing and Public Health (JNPH)

Publisher: Unived Press, Universitas Dehasen Bengkulu, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2338-7033  |  Online ISSN: 2722-0613

Official website: https://jurnal.unived.ac.id/index.php/jnph

1. Purpose and Scope

Journal of Nursing and Public Health (JNPH) is an open-access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Its editorial evaluation is designed to safeguard methodological rigour, research integrity, relevance and the reliability of evidence across nursing, public health, epidemiology, health services, health promotion and related disciplines. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. Reviewers provide independent expert advice and do not determine acceptance by themselves.

This policy applies to original research, review articles, short reports and other article categories formally accepted by the journal. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit rather than authors’ identities, institutional status, nationality, financial considerations or personal relationships.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment of its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, clarity, methodological adequacy, ethical declarations, reporting quality and compliance with author instructions. Editors may decline submissions without external review when they are outside scope, substantially incomplete, insufficiently original, or affected by serious methodological or ethical concerns. Exceptional acceptance without external peer review is not part of the recommended procedure for scholarly research submissions.

3. Peer Review Model and Reviewer Selection

JNPH should apply a double-blind review model: reviewers are not informed of authors’ identities and authors are not informed of reviewers’ identities during assessment, to the extent that anonymity can reasonably be maintained. Authors must remove identifying information from anonymised manuscripts and supplementary files. Editors should not promise that anonymity can always be guaranteed, particularly for preprints or identifiable datasets.

The recommended minimum is two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. A third reviewer or statistical, methodological, clinical or public health specialist may be invited where opinions conflict or specialist assessment is required. Reviewers should be selected for subject expertise, independence, impartiality and ability to meet an agreed deadline.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities and Conflicts of Interest

• Accept invitations only when appropriately qualified and able to deliver a timely assessment.
• Disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment; decline where independence cannot be maintained.
• Treat manuscripts, unpublished data, patient information and editorial correspondence as confidential.
• Do not use privileged information for personal, academic, clinical or commercial advantage.
• Do not contact authors directly about a manuscript without editorial authorisation.
• Provide constructive, evidence-based and respectful comments, distinguishing major concerns from optional suggestions.
• Do not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, identifiable data or review reports to external generative AI services without explicit journal authorisation and appropriate safeguards.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess each manuscript against criteria relevant to its design and clinical or public health significance:

• Clarity of research objectives, rationale, contribution and relevance to nursing or public health.
• Appropriateness of study design, sampling, instruments, interventions, comparison groups and statistical or qualitative methods.
• Transparency of data collection, analysis, missing data management, limitations and reproducibility.
• Accuracy of results, strength of evidence, avoidance of unsupported causal claims and consistency of conclusions.
• Research ethics approval or documented exemption where applicable, informed consent, participant privacy and responsible handling of sensitive health data.
• Clinical trial registration where required, intervention safety and adverse-event reporting where applicable.
• Use of design-appropriate reporting guidance (for example CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ or CARE) when relevant.
• Adequacy and accuracy of citations, originality, competing-interest declarations and funding transparency.

Reviewers assess scholarly substance; routine language editing and copyediting are not their responsibility. Language quality must nevertheless be sufficient for the scientific work to be assessed.

6. Confidentiality, Research Ethics and Patient Safety

Submissions involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements. Editors and reviewers should examine whether appropriate research ethics approval, informed consent, privacy safeguards, and clinical trial registration are reported where relevant. Case reports require appropriate patient consent for publication when identifying details might be disclosed. Patient safety, public health harms and serious ethical concerns must be escalated promptly to the handling editor. Editorial assessment is not a substitute for institutional ethics review.

7. Review Reports, Revisions and Decisions

Reviewers should submit a reasoned report with confidential comments to the editor where appropriate and constructive comments suitable for communication to authors. Recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. The handling editor weighs the evidence, may request additional review, and communicates a decision with proportionate reasons. Authors should respond point by point to substantive comments and clearly identify revisions. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers where necessary.

A positive review does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor. Acceptance requires satisfactory completion of the editorial, peer-review and ethics requirements. Editorial decisions must not be purchased or guaranteed through publication fees.

8. Editorial Independence and Special Cases

The publisher, Unived Press, provides operational support but must not influence editorial decisions for financial or institutional reasons. Manuscripts submitted by editors, board members or individuals associated with the publisher must be handled by an independent editor without relevant conflicts, using equivalent review standards. Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts where personal, professional or financial interests compromise impartiality.

9. Research Integrity Concerns During Review

Suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image or data manipulation, duplicate publication, peer-review manipulation, unethical human-participant research, undisclosed conflicts or inappropriate GenAI use must be referred to the Editor-in-Chief. The journal should follow documented, fair and confidential procedures informed by COPE guidance, seeking author clarification and institutional cooperation where appropriate. Automated similarity or AI-detection outputs alone do not establish misconduct.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration by submitting a reasoned appeal identifying a material factual error, procedural irregularity or overlooked evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer’s opinion alone does not require reversal. Appeals should be examined by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor not materially involved in the original decision, where practicable. Complaints concerning editor conflicts or research integrity should be channelled to an independent responsible editorial or publisher representative. Appeals cannot guarantee acceptance.

11. Becoming a Reviewer and Recognition

Qualified academics, nurses, public health professionals, clinicians, epidemiologists and researchers may express interest in reviewing through the official journal contact facilities. Selection is based on expertise, research experience, integrity and independence. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged collectively or through approved professional-recognition mechanisms without disclosing confidential author–reviewer links. The journal should clearly communicate any compensation arrangements rather than imply payment.

12. Monitoring and Policy Review

The Editorial Board should monitor review quality, timeliness, reviewer diversity, conflicts of interest, appeals and ethical concerns. Publication schedules and target turnaround times should be stated only when approved and operationally supported; the journal must not compromise rigorous review to meet targets. This policy should be reviewed periodically in light of COPE, ICMJE, EQUATOR Network and relevant disciplinary guidance.

Official Policy Statement

Journal of Nursing and Public Health is committed to independent, confidential and rigorous peer review, fair treatment of authors, protection of human participants and trustworthy dissemination of nursing and public health evidence. Editorial decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor and are informed by competent external assessments.

Policy authority: Editorial Board, Journal of Nursing and Public Health. Publisher: Unived Press, Universitas Dehasen Bengkulu, Indonesia.

Implementation note: This revised policy is proposed for Editorial Board approval. The recommended minimum of two independent reviewers and specific operational safeguards should be verified against, and implemented in, the journal’s OJS workflow before being presented as established procedures.