Peer Review Process/ Policy

Jurnal Keperawatan Tropis Papua (JKTP) applies a rigorous, transparent peer review process to all submitted manuscripts. Peer review is the cornerstone of quality scholarly publishing and serves to ensure the scientific validity, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of published work. JKTP is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows COPE guidelines in all aspects of the review process. All manuscripts submitted to JKTP are reviewed using the procedure described below.

1. INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editors before being sent for external review. At this stage, manuscripts are assessed for the following:

Relevance to the journal's focus and scope
Originality and scientific significance
Compliance with submission requirements, including the presence of a completed reporting standard checklist (STROBE, TREND, CONSORT, SRQR, COREQ, PRISMA, CARE, or STARD as applicable)
Evidence of prior ethical approval from a suitably constituted research ethics committee or institutional review board, with the certificate number and issuing institution stated in the manuscript. Manuscripts that have not obtained ethical approval prior to the commencement of research will normally not be considered for peer review.
Similarity index not exceeding 20% as verified by Turnitin or equivalent software
Adequate clarity and quality of language
Correct anonymization of the manuscript file (author names, affiliations, and identifying information must be removed from the manuscript file before submission)

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria at this stage will be returned to authors without external review. Authors will be informed of the reason for return.

2. TYPE OF PEER REVIEW

JKTP employs double-blind peer review. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the entire review process. Authors must ensure that their manuscript file is fully anonymized before submission — all author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding statements, and any other identifying information must be removed from the manuscript file and placed in a separate title page file. The editorial team verifies anonymization before sending manuscripts to reviewers.

3. REVIEWER SELECTION

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two external reviewers selected on the basis of their relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected from the journal's reviewer database as well as from the broader academic, clinical, and nursing research community, including international reviewers where appropriate.

Editors ensure that assigned reviewers do not have a conflict of interest — financial, collaborative, competitive, or personal — with any of the authors or the research institution. Reviewers who recognize a potential conflict of interest after accepting an assignment must notify the editor immediately and withdraw from the review. Editors who have a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript will recuse themselves from handling that manuscript.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of specific individuals at the time of submission. Exclusion requests will be respected if the reasons provided are well-founded and practicable.

4. REVIEWER EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on the following criteria:

Originality and contribution to nursing science and practice
Soundness and appropriateness of study design and methodology
Completeness of reporting in accordance with the applicable reporting standard (STROBE, TREND, CONSORT, SRQR, COREQ, PRISMA, CARE, or STARD)
Validity, clarity, and completeness of results and their interpretation
Logical consistency between the conclusions and the data presented
Adequacy, accuracy, and currency of references
Compliance with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects
Overall quality and clarity of writing and presentation

Reviewers are also asked to flag any ethical concerns, any significant overlap with previously published work, or any suspicion of data fabrication or falsification. Language editing is not part of the peer review process; however, reviewers may note significant language issues in their comments.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and professionally respectful feedback. Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate. Reviews that contain offensive, defamatory, or discourteous content will not be forwarded to authors.

5. EDITORIAL DECISION

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief issues one of the following decisions, in accordance with the OJS editorial workflow:

Accept Submission — the manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted, without further revision required
Revisions Required — the manuscript will be accepted after satisfactory revision; the revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the editor and may be returned to reviewers
Resubmit for Review — the manuscript requires substantial revision and a new round of external peer review before a decision can be made
Resubmit Elsewhere — the manuscript is considered scientifically sound but falls outside the focus and scope of JKTP; authors are encouraged to submit to a more appropriate journal
Decline Submission — the manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication in JKTP

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope. Decisions are made independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, race, gender, religion, or any other personal characteristic. Commercial considerations have no influence on editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final, subject to the appeals procedure described in Section 7.

6. REVISION AND RESUBMISSION

Authors whose manuscripts require revision will receive the editorial decision letter together with reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted through the OJS system and must be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing all reviewer and editor comments. The response letter must clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript, with reference to page and line numbers, or provide a reasoned scientific justification for any points not addressed. Revised manuscripts submitted without a response letter will be returned to authors.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, at the discretion of the handling editor. Authors are encouraged to re-anonymize the revised manuscript file before resubmission.

7. APPEALS

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection decision may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via the journal's contact email. The appeal must provide a detailed, evidence-based scientific justification for reconsideration. Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer assessments, without substantive counter-argument, will not be considered.

Appeals will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines on appeals and complaints (publicationethics.org). The Editor-in-Chief may seek the opinion of additional reviewers or members of the editorial board before issuing a final decision on the appeal.

8. NOTIFICATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The corresponding author will be notified in writing of the editorial decision at each stage of the review process. Reviewer comments will be communicated to authors, unless those comments contain offensive, defamatory, or inappropriate content. The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors at any stage of the process.

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, cite, or make use of unpublished data or ideas from manuscripts under review without the explicit written consent of the authors. Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and related correspondence.