Editorial policy
The Icelandic Journal of Nursing is published three times a year. The journal is a forum for all members of the Icelandic Nurses’ Association and therefore reflects all opinions and aspects of nursing. It is the ambition of the association that all members can find informative content in the journal.
The journal is a forum for scholarly and social publishing on nursing. In the scholarly section of the journal are published peer-reviewed articles focused on all varieties of nursing.
It is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that all content, publishing, and management is in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy. The editor is responsible for the content to adhere to professional standards, correct use of Icelandic vernacular and style. Peer-reviewed articles must adhere to scholarly standards.
The Icelandic Nursing Association president is responsible for all social content, opinion pieces excluded. The authors of opinion pieces are responsible for their articles. Opinions expressed in the journals content are not mandated to adhere to the policy of the Icelandic Nurses Association.
Ethical guideline
- Disputes, Ethical Issues, and Allegations of Research Misconduct. Anyone can submit comments regarding articles published in the journal. The main editor of the journal reviews any disputes or allegations that are received and delegates the issues depending on the nature of complaint. Ethical issues related to the content of a peer-reviewed article are referred to the Peer-review editorial board (PEB) which decides next steps. If necessary, relevant societal ethics committees and institutions associated with the authors are informed of the allegations received by the journal and are asked for a statement. If it is found that ethical guidelines or other standard research and publication procedures were not properly followed, the PEB may decide to retract the publication.
- Authors and Author Contribution. The PEB reviews the contributions of each author. To be considered an author of an article, the contribution of the author must be clearly defined. No one can be listed as an author of a peer-reviewed article without having contributed to the work. The primary author is responsible for ensuring that authorship and contributions are correctly documented. If issues arise related to the contributions and order of authors, the PEB will directly contact the primary author. The RRG may also contact other authors if the issue is not resolved. If serious disputes arise, the RRG may contact the institution where the authors work or own the data and request a formal opinion. Research findings should not be published in multiple venues, and it is unethical to submit a manuscript for publication in multiple journals, whether in another language or not. If authors wish to publish their findings in another journal after having published them in Tímarit hjúkrunarfræðinga, they must obtain permission from the PEB.
- It is the responsibility of the authors to present data and results accurately and reliably. The manuscript should always include any ethical issues that were considered, and if a direct study is involved, the authors must state all research permits granted by the appropriate institutions in accordance with laws and regulations. Authors may be required to submit the original research data for review. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. If the authors discover any errors or inaccuracies in the results after publication, it is their responsibility to inform the PEB of the situation and work with the editorial board to determine whether a correction to the article is necessary or whether the publication needs to be retracted. Authors are obligated to collaborate with the PEB in resolving any issues and disputes as needed.
- It is important to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise during the process of peer-reviewed articles. Authors are responsible for disclosing any potential conflicts of interest in their research work, and this should be included in the manuscript where applicable. The PEB is responsible for maintaining the anonymity of authors from reviewers and the anonymity of reviewers from authors. Since Iceland is a small country with few active researchers, it is particularly challenging for the PEB to find experts to review manuscripts without direct conflicts of interest. Disputes and issues related to potential conflicts of interest are handled in the same process as other issues according to section 1. Reviewers are required to inform the PEB if there is a conflict of interest related to the author, manuscript or to the research results, they are asked to review. If there are conflicts of interest the reviewer should decline reviewing the manuscript.
- Reviewers should ensure that they provide an unbiased and honest review within the given timeframe. If a reviewer believes they are not qualified to review a particular manuscript, it is their responsibility to inform the PEB as soon as possible.
- The Icelandic Nurses' Association is responsible for the publication of the Icelandic Journal of Nursing Tímarit hjúkrunarfræðinga but delegates the responsibility for the publication of scientific articles to the PEB.
These ethical guidelines are based on principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Instructions to authors of peer-reviewed articles
Peer-reviewed articles
Peer reviewed articles are based on research, summaries, and theories. Peer-review is double blind, the author does not know the identity of the reviewer nor does the reviewer know the identity of the author. The process is designed to assess the validity, quality, and the originality of articles for publication.
Educational and social articles
Educational articles pertain to all subjects of nursing and are based on scholarly literature. The journal also publishes interviews with nurses. The social section of the journal addresses matters such as wages and events pertaining to the Icelandic Nurses’ Association.
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.
Editorial board 2024-2025
Peer-review editorial board
Kristín Linda Hjartardóttir
Peer-review editorial board
Herdís Sveinsdóttir
Peer-review editorial board
Sigrún Sunna Skúladóttir
General editorial board
Sölvi Sveinsson
General editorial board
Ragnheiður Haralds Eiríksdóttir Bjarman
General editorial board
Helga Pálmadóttir
Peer-review editorial board
Þóra Jenný Gunnarsdóttir
Editor
