Criteria for Review

We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. This is a guideline for reviewers who voluntarily participate in the peer review process of Research in Community and Public Health Nursing (RCPHN). All of the journal’s contents including commissioned manuscripts are subject to peer-review.

• 1. According to the Bylaws of the Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing and the Regulations on the Editorial Board of KACHN, these guidelines are provided for the review of manuscript submitted to RCPHN.
• 2. Manuscripts are reviewed and accepted according to these guidelines
• 3. Manuscripts to be reviewed should be research papers related to community nursing, and dissertations for a master’s or doctoral degree goes through the same review procedure. However, the reviewing process may be different in the case of special papers that are contributed to the development of community and public health nursing.
• 4. Manuscripts not complying with the qualifications and regulations related to the contribution will be rejected.
• 5. Role of the reviewers: The peer-reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscript to revise, accept, or reject. Judgments should be objective, and comments should be described lucidly. Scientific soundness is the most important value of the journal. Therefore, logic and statistical analysis should be considered meticulously. The use of reporting guidelines is recommended for review. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest. Reviewers should point out relevant published work that is not yet cited. Reviewed articles are managed confidentially. The editorial board is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments..
• 6. How to become a reviewer: Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial board or recommended by authors. Anyone who wishes to work voluntarily as a reviewer can contact the editorial office.
• 7. Two or more reviewers are assigned to each manuscript and the reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board.
• 8. Accepting an invitation to review: The Editors will invite you to review because they believe that you are an expert in a certain area. They would have judged this from your previous publication record or conference/posters sessions. Before you accept an invitation to review a paper, you should consider The following:
  • ·   Are you qualified?
    You should decline to review the manuscript if it is too far outside your area.
  • ·   Do you have time?
    If review comments cannot be submitted within the three weeks review period, please decline to review the manuscript or ask for an extension.
  • ·   Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
    In case of any conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. The conflicts of interest should be disclosed if the reviewer still wishes to review.
• 9. Double Blind Peer Review: RCPHN adopts double blind review which means that the reviewer cannot identify author information and authors cannot identify reviewers, too.
• 10. Manuscript are reviewed according to the ‘criteria for review’. The reviewer writes their review comments
  • 1) Criteria for review: Review table with 8 items (Originality, Well written, Significance, Research Question(s) and Purpose of Study, Methodology, Findings, Discussion/Conclusions, and References) using the scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) (if it is not applicable, check N/A) is provided for the reviewer’s convenience.
  • 2) Comment to authors: Summarize the whole content of the manuscript in one sentence. Mention the strengths of the manuscript, and any problems that make you believe it should not be published, or that would need to be corrected to make it publishable.
  • 3) Comment to editor: Both the strength and weaknesses of the manuscript should be added. The reviewer’s recommendation on acceptance may be added here, including any other opinions to the editor.
• 11. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
  • 1) Any information acquired during the review process is confidential.
  • 2) Please inform the editor of any conflicts of interest, such as
    • • Reviewer is a competitor.
    • • Reviewer may have some antipathy with the author(s).
    • • Reviewer may profit financially from the work.
      In case of any of the above conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. The conflicts of interest should be disclosed if the reviewer still wishes to review. A history of collaboration with the authors or any intimate relationship with the authors does not preclude the review.
  • 3) Reviewer should not use any material or data originating from the manuscript in review; however, it is possible to use the open data of the manuscript after publication.
• 12. The review procedures are as follows:
  • 1) The Editor-in-Chief chooses two or more reviewers and one editor online based on their research specialty.
  • 2) The reviewers examine the manuscript online and input the evaluation results, what to revise, and what needs to be supplemented in three weeks.
  • 3) The reviewers should keep confidential the fact that they have reviewed the manuscript.
  • 4) The results of the review by the two or more reviewers are deliberated by the editorial board, and the editorial Board makes the final decision.
• 13. Based on the review, the reviewers make general opinions and detailed reports, and decide one of the following: ‘Accept,' ‘Minor Revision,' ‘Major Revision,’ and ‘Reject.’
• 14. Based on the two or more reviewers’ review results, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the manuscript.
  • 1) Accept: Accept without revision.
  • 2) Minor Revision: The authors should revise as commented by the reviewers, and the reviewers confirm the revisions.
  • 3) Major Revision: The authors should revise as commented by the reviewers, and the reviewers review the manuscript and decide whether to accept it.
  • 4) Reject: Only if the contents of the manuscript fall into any of the cases listed below:
    • ① The research theme is not original or lacks the significance of nursing.
    • ② The contents are plagiarized from previous studies.
    • ③ The reliability or validity of the research results is questioned.
    • ④ In the evaluation criteria, more than 30% of the items were graded ‘Lowest.’
    • ⑤ It is considered impossible to revise.
• 15. The contents of the review shall not be disclosed to anybody other than the author.
• 16. The editorial board finally decides whether to publish the manuscript by combining the review results of the two or more reviewers and the review results of the editors.
• 17. If the authors fail to submit a revised manuscript within two weeks from the date of revision request by the Board, it is regarded as being withdrawn (If the author requests an extension, the due date may be extended for another month).

Additional Clauses
These regulations are effective from March 24, 2023.