Policies of Peer Review

 | Post date: 2018/03/18 | 
Guidelines for Reviewers
    Any unpublished article submitted to you for review must be protected as a document. Please avoid referring to its results and making individual use of the unpublished article.
  1. A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
  2. If you are not able to review the submitted article for any reason, please notify us of your withdrawal as soon as possible.
  3. Reviews should be completed expeditiously (within 2 weeks.) If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
  4. Please do not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author but advise the editor on the sheet provided.
  5. In your review, please consider the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:
  • Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied and originality.
  • Adequacy of abstract (250-350 words) and key words (2-5(that were set based on Mesh.
  • Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate and need for statistical assessment).
  • Are the methods used adequately described? Are they appropriate? Are the patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
  • Results relevant to problem posed? Well presented?
  • Soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
  • Relevance of discussion (Discussion should be organised just based on results and all article should have limitation and recommendation in the text based on results)
  • References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
  • Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles (up to 2-6 figures and tables).
  • If not acceptable can the paper be made so?
Ethical aspects (The Ethics Committee of … University of Medical Sciences approved the study (Ethical code: IR…...REC….). Written informed consent from all participants in the study, and they were assured that their personal information would remain confidential. Also, exercise therapy was carried out for the control group after the study.
This trail was also registered at www…... ir (IRCT…..).
  • Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)
  • Journal writing pattern should be followed and terms used for headlines should be taken into consideration.
  • According to the type of study, the number of references in the article should be considered and preferably 20-30% of the references can only be related to the last 3-5 years.
  • The journal is not allowed to accept articles that do not provide the ethics registration code. Please note
  1. In comments intended for the authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.
  2. Suggested revisions should be couched as such, and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Please distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged as merely desirable.
  3. Even if we do not accept a paper, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For this reason, please give detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) that will help both the editors to decide on the paper and the authors to improve it.
  4. Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.
  5. You are not requested to correct mistakes in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated. Native editing will be done for all accepted articles.
  6. The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.

These guidelines are based on the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors.

You may find the journal’s article reviewing procedure, here.

Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery as a member of Negah Journals is committed to apply following codes and principles of conduct of the publisher, Negah Institute for Scientific Communication:

View: 5009 Time(s)   |   Print: 578 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)