Peer Review Policy & Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Pendidikan Keperawatan Indonesia (JPKI) undergo an initial editorial screening before being considered for external peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor assesses the manuscript for:

• Relevance to the Focus and Scope of JPKI;
• Originality and potential scholarly contribution;
• Scientific and methodological quality;
• Compliance with the journal's Author Guidelines;
• Appropriate manuscript structure and reporting;
• Compliance with research and publication ethics;
• Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
• Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines; and
• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other research integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient originality, contain substantial methodological weaknesses, fail to meet essential ethical requirements, or are otherwise unsuitable for publication may be rejected without external peer review. This is considered an editorial rejection or desk rejection.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening proceed to a double-blind peer-review process. This model is intended to promote impartial, independent, and objective evaluation and to minimize potential bias related to authorship, institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, or other characteristics unrelated to scientific merit.

Authors are responsible for preparing an appropriately anonymized manuscript. Names, affiliations, contact information, acknowledgments, and other information that could directly reveal author identity should be removed from the manuscript file used for peer review.

Editors and editorial staff are responsible for maintaining reviewer anonymity and protecting confidential information throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, methodological competence, clinical or educational expertise, publication experience, and relevance to the topic of the manuscript.

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise.

When reviewer assessments differ substantially, or when additional specialist expertise is required, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.

Potential reviewers should decline an invitation when they lack sufficient expertise, cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, or have a competing interest that may compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers must provide an impartial and independent assessment of manuscripts. Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should determine whether any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest could influence their evaluation.

Relevant competing interests may arise from financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, competitive, or collaborative relationships with the authors or organizations associated with the manuscript.

Reviewers with a significant competing interest should decline the invitation or promptly inform the editor.

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or disclose manuscripts or information obtained through the peer-review process to unauthorized individuals. Reviewers must not directly contact authors concerning the manuscript without permission from the editor.

Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer's own research, publication, professional activities, commercial purposes, or personal advantage.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality and Significance – novelty, importance, and contribution to existing knowledge.
• Relevance to JPKI – alignment with the journal's Focus and Scope and contribution to nursing education, nursing science, or evidence-based nursing practice.
• Methodological Rigor – appropriateness of research design, sampling, measurement, intervention, data collection, and analysis.
• Ethical Compliance – ethical approval, informed consent, confidentiality, and participant protection where applicable.
• Results – clarity, accuracy, consistency, and appropriate presentation of findings.
• Discussion – appropriate interpretation of findings in relation to existing evidence.
• Conclusions – conclusions supported by the findings without inappropriate overstatement.
• Reporting Quality – transparency, completeness, coherence, and adherence to relevant reporting standards.
• References – relevance, appropriateness, and adequate support for scientific statements.

JPKI encourages and, where applicable, requires authors to follow internationally recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to their study design.

• CONSORT – randomized controlled trials;
• STROBE – observational studies;
• PRISMA – systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
• PRISMA-ScR – scoping reviews;
• COREQ – qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups;
• SRQR – qualitative research;
• CARE – case reports; and
• Other recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to the study design.

Reviewer reports should be objective, constructive, respectful, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed to support editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish major scientific concerns from minor recommendations and explain the scientific basis of their concerns.

Personal criticism, hostile or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, or comments unrelated to scholarly evaluation are inappropriate.

Reviewers should alert the editor to potential research or publication ethics concerns, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate data or image manipulation, ethical approval concerns, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, or other questionable research practices.

Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or directly contact authors regarding suspected misconduct.

Additional references should be recommended only when scientifically relevant and necessary. Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own publications, JPKI, their colleagues, or associated institutions.

Reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content, accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their review reports.

Manuscripts under review, unpublished data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial information must not be uploaded to publicly accessible generative AI systems or external AI platforms that may retain, reuse, process, or disclose confidential content.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies must not compromise confidentiality, intellectual property rights, reviewer independence, research integrity, or the integrity of the peer-review process.

AI-generated assessments must not replace the reviewer's own critical scientific evaluation and professional judgment.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the journal's final editorial decision.

After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor and/or Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' assessments.

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may evaluate the scientific basis of the differing assessments, request clarification, invite an additional reviewer, or seek further expert advice.

When revision is requested, authors should carefully address all comments provided by editors and reviewers and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they may provide a clear, respectful, and scientifically supported explanation.

A decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision does not constitute acceptance.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor or returned to the original reviewers when further expert evaluation is considered necessary. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, or individuals closely associated with JPKI are not entitled to preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts undergo the same scientific, methodological, ethical, and peer-review standards applied to other submissions.

An editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise has a relevant competing interest must have no involvement in reviewer selection, peer-review management, or the editorial decision concerning that manuscript.

The manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor who has no relevant competing interest with the authors.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, scientific error, or procedural concern may submit a reasoned appeal.

The appeal should clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant scientific or procedural justification.

Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not necessarily constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original editorial decision.

Jurnal Pendidikan Keperawatan Indonesia (JPKI) is committed to protecting the integrity and independence of peer review.

Attempts to manipulate reviewer selection, reviewer identity, peer-review reports, editorial decisions, or any other component of the peer-review process are considered serious breaches of publication ethics.

Where peer-review manipulation or other misconduct is suspected, JPKI may investigate the matter and take appropriate editorial action in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.