1. The manuscript is delivered.

2. The author is contacted within a week after the manuscript is delivered.

3. Editor contacts the peer-review editorial board within a week of receiving the manuscript.

4. The peer-review editorial board contacts the editor within two weeks and informs the editor if the manuscript is rejected or is accepted for peer-review. If the manuscript is accepted, then the peer-review editorial board nominates two reviewers and one/two alternates. The editor delivers the manuscript to the reviewers.

5. Within three weeks the author will be notified if the article has been rejected or will be peer reviewed.

6. The editor contacts reviewers within three weeks of receiving the manuscript.

7. If the reviewers have not replied within a week the editor will reiterate.

8. If four weeks have passed without a reply from the reviewers, then the peer-review editorial board is tasked with finding reviewers.

9. The manuscript must be delivered to a reviewer within five weeks after sending it to the journal. The reviewer has three weeks to review the manuscript.

10. Two weeks after receiving the manuscript the editor reminds the reviewer that he has one week left.

11. The reviewer sends his review to the editor.

12. The editor delivers the reviews, simultaneously, to the peer-review editorial board.

13. The peer review editorial board has one week to reach a decision.

14. The editor shall have received a reply from the peer-review editorial board within eight weeks after originally receiving the manuscript from the author.

15. The editor shall have replied to the author within nine weeks of originally receiving the manuscript.

16. If the manuscript has not finished the reviewing process after four weeks the author shall be notified.

17. Authors have 2-5 weeks (2 weeks for minor comments, five weeks for major comments) to review the manuscript.

18. Manuscript is delivered to editor. Points 9 through 12 repeated.

It is the policy of the Icelandic Journal of Nursing to publish professional, reliable articles that adhere to scholarly standards and are important for nurses and other health professionals regarding practices, research and policy making.

The peer review process adheres to protocols. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two separate reviewers. The reviewer is anonymous to the author and the author is anonymous to the reviewer. Manuscripts are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are asked to finish their review within three weeks of receiving the manuscript. If that deadline cannot be met the reviewer is asked to contact the editor at the earliest opportunity.

The reviewer is tasked with compiling their conclusions in form of a review and present a clear decision if it is their opinion that the manuscript shall be published without changes, rejected or published after changes, see protocols for peer-review.

If the reviewer has directions only addressed to the peer-review editorial board, then they shall be delivered in a separate document.

The reviewer shall deliver all comments via email. The reviewer is authorized to make comments within the manuscript itself and use track-changes. To ensure the anonymity of the reviewer all identifiable traces must be removed, the editor is tasked with making sure all comments are anonymous before turning the manuscript back over to the author.

The reviewer does not have to make comments on spelling or grammar unless the meaning is unclear.

The reviewer fills out a special checklist and follows the guidelines here below.

Guidelines for reviewers

Title

• Is the title of the article descriptive of its content?
• Does the title include abbreviations?

The manuscript

• Importance of the manuscript. Does it deepen knowledge in the subject? Does the manuscript contain new and important findings for nurses or other health professionals?
• Has it been published before?
• How is the grammar and spelling?
• Can the manuscript be shortened without losing meaning?
• Is the manuscript repetitive?
• Does the manuscript follow a logical structure?
• Does the manuscript contain a summary in English and Icelandic?
• Are all related information, citations, images, and summaries included in the manuscript?
• Are the citations standardized (APA)?
• Should the manuscript be published without changes, does it need changes to be published or should the manuscript be rejected?

Summary

• Is the summary descriptive of the aim, method, results and conclusions?
• Is the English translation correct?

Introduction

• Is the status of research on the subject recounted?
• Are citations to important or latest studies on the subject?
• Are theories and hypothesis clearly presented and qualified?
• Does the introduction rationalize the need for the article?
  

Method

• Is the sample properly described?
• Is the selection of participants properly described?
• Are there faults with the sample?
• Is the study design able to answer the hypothesis or research question?
• Are there faults with the statistical analysis?
• Are measuring equipment or questionnaires properly described?
• Are the methods described in such a way that they can be replicated?
• Does the manuscript deal with ethical questions?

Results

• Do the results answer the hypothesis or research question?
• Are the results clearly presented?
• Are faults with the data analysis?
• Are statistical results properly presented?
• Are there faults with the interpretation of statistical results?
• Do statistical results reference statistical analysis?
• Are results presented via text better suited for graphical presentation?
• Are results of other research presented in the result chapter? The result chapter is only meant for presenting the results of this research, other research belong in the conclusion chapter.

Conclusions

• Are the conclusions logical and conform to the results?
• Are there references to results and conclusions of other authors?
• Are other results differentiated with the authors own results?
• Are strengths and weaknesses of the research presented?
• Are other aspects that are raised during the research process presented?
• Is the importance of this research to nursing clearly presented?

References

• Are the references appropriate and used correctly?
• Does the text contain statements that are unsupported by references?
• Are there references to other research on the same subject?
• Is there a moderate number of references (Usually not more than 35)?
• Are all the references necessary?

Graphics

• Are there more than six tables, graphs, photos, or other graphics? Are they all necessary?
• Can the reader understand the graphics without reading the text?

It is helpful to read the instructions for authors of peer-reviewed articles.

Updated in January 2015.