Peer review is an essential component of the editorial process of the Journal of Nursing in Infection Prevention and Control (JNIPC). Reviewers support the Editors in assessing the scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

JNIPC applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations independently, objectively, confidentially, constructively, and within the agreed timeframe.

Initial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Nursing in Infection Prevention and Control undergo an initial technical and editorial screening by the Editorial Office.

This process verifies that the submission:

1. is complete in all required components;
2. has been correctly anonymized for double-blind peer review;
3. is written in English and prepared according to the Author Guidelines;
4. falls within the Journal’s aims, scope, and approved article categories;
5. includes the required ethical statements, declarations, reporting checklists, and supporting documentation;
6. does not contain plagiarized, duplicated, or improperly reused material.

Submissions may be screened using plagiarism and similarity-detection systems made available by the Publisher. The results of similarity screening are interpreted by the Editors and are not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision.

Editorial Assessment

Submissions that successfully complete the initial screening are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or to a designated Editor, who assesses:

1. consistency with the Journal’s aims, scope, and selected article category;
2. originality and potential scientific contribution;
3. relevance to infection prevention and control, nursing practice, education, healthcare organization, or policy;
4. overall methodological appropriateness and quality of reporting;
5. ethical compliance and completeness of the required declarations;
6. relevance and potential interest for the Journal’s international readership.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the Journal’s scope, methodologically inadequate, insufficiently original, ethically non-compliant, or not prepared according to the Author Guidelines may be rejected without external peer review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Peer-Review Process

JNIPC adopts a double-blind peer-review system. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another throughout the review process. Access to identifying information is restricted to authorized members of the Editorial Office and editorial leadership where necessary for the management of the submission.

Reviewers may include:

• independent external experts;
• suitably qualified members of the Editorial Board or scientific network of the Journal;
• reviewers suggested by authors, exclusively at the discretion of the Editors and following verification of expertise, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are normally requested to accept or decline the invitation within seven days and to submit their completed evaluation within two to four weeks of accepting the assignment.

Review reports and all information relating to the manuscript remain confidential. Commentaries and other editorial content may undergo external peer review when considered necessary by the Editor-in-Chief.

General Principles of Peer Review

• Reviewers support the Editors by providing an independent assessment of the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, rigor, and relevance.
• Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and free from personal criticism.
• Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and of all materials associated with the review.
• Any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed promptly.
• Reviewers must decline assignments that fall substantially outside their area of expertise.
• Reviewers must decline assignments that they cannot complete carefully within the requested timeframe.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, professional, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.
• Confidential comments intended only for the Editor must be entered separately and must not contradict the comments provided to the authors without an appropriate explanation.

Before Accepting the Review

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should verify:

• that the manuscript falls within their area of scientific or methodological expertise;
• that they have sufficient time to complete a careful and independent review;
• that no personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality;
• that they understand the Journal’s double-blind peer-review model and confidentiality requirements;
• that they have reviewed the applicable Author Guidelines and these Guidelines for Reviewers.

Reviewers who are uncertain about their suitability or independence should contact the Editorial Office before accepting the assignment.

Confidentiality and Use of Artificial Intelligence

The submitted manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers must not copy, distribute, disclose, discuss, reproduce, retain, or share the manuscript or its contents with any unauthorized person.

Reviewers must not delegate the review to a colleague, trainee, student, or other person without prior authorization from the Editor. Where an authorized co-reviewer contributes to the evaluation, that person must be identified to the Editorial Office and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations.

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, excerpts, tables, figures, supplementary files, unpublished data, or review reports to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other external services that cannot guarantee confidentiality, data protection, and non-retention of the submitted material.

Generative artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s independent scientific judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, confidentiality, and content of their evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must inform the Editor promptly of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

Conflicts may arise from, but are not limited to:

• recent or ongoing collaboration with an author or the author’s institution;
• personal, supervisory, academic, institutional, or professional relationships;
• direct scientific competition;
• financial interests connected to the subject, intervention, product, organization, or findings described in the manuscript;
• involvement in the research, preparation, or previous evaluation of the manuscript;
• strong personal or intellectual positions that may prevent an impartial assessment.

A disclosed relationship does not automatically prevent a reviewer from completing the evaluation. The Editor will determine whether the circumstances are compatible with an independent review. Transparency is mandatory.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers should assess the following general criteria:

• relevance to the aims and scope of JNIPC;
• scientific originality and contribution to knowledge;
• relevance to nursing and infection prevention and control;
• methodological appropriateness and rigor;
• adequacy of the sampling strategy, data collection, measurement, and analysis;
• adequacy of statistical analyses, where applicable;
• consistency between the study aim, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions;
• transparency, completeness, and reproducibility of reporting;
• adherence to the relevant EQUATOR reporting guideline;
• ethical compliance and appropriate protection of participants and confidential data;
• accuracy, relevance, balance, and currency of the references;
• clarity and appropriateness of tables, figures, and supplementary materials;
• clinical, educational, organizational, scientific, or policy implications;
• whether the conclusions are supported by the reported findings.

Evaluation of Research Articles

For Research Articles, reviewers should consider whether:

• the research question or objective is clearly defined;
• the selected design is appropriate to the objective;
• the setting, population, eligibility criteria, and sampling procedures are adequately described;
• the variables, instruments, interventions, and outcome measures are valid and clearly reported;
• the data-analysis methods are appropriate and sufficiently described;
• the results are complete, transparent, and free from unnecessary duplication;
• limitations and potential sources of bias are appropriately acknowledged;
• the interpretation is balanced and supported by the findings;
• the manuscript provides meaningful implications for infection prevention and control.

Evaluation of Reviews

For review manuscripts, reviewers should assess:

• whether the review question and objectives are clearly defined;
• whether the review design is appropriate and correctly identified;
• the completeness and reproducibility of the search strategy;
• the appropriateness of databases, sources, keywords, and search dates;
• the transparency of the eligibility criteria and study-selection process;
• the adequacy of data extraction, quality appraisal, and synthesis methods;
• adherence to PRISMA or another applicable reporting guideline;
• the balance and accuracy of the interpretation;
• whether the conclusions accurately reflect the available evidence;
• whether limitations in the evidence base and review process are properly discussed.

Evaluation of Brief Reports

For Brief Reports, reviewers should consider whether:

• the report presents a focused and relevant scientific, clinical, surveillance, implementation, or quality-improvement contribution;
• the abbreviated format still provides sufficient methodological information;
• the findings are reliable, clearly presented, and appropriately interpreted;
• the conclusions remain proportionate to the design and available data;
• the report has practical relevance for infection prevention and control;
• the relevant ethical approval or institutional authorization has been reported.

Evaluation of Commentaries

For Commentaries, reviewers should assess whether:

• the topic is timely and relevant to the Journal’s readership;
• the argument is clear, coherent, balanced, and logically developed;
• statements and interpretations are supported by appropriate evidence;
• alternative perspectives or relevant uncertainties are acknowledged;
• the commentary makes a meaningful contribution to scientific, professional, organizational, educational, or policy debate;
• the conclusions and recommendations avoid unsupported or promotional claims.

Ethical Considerations During Review

Reviewers should verify that the manuscript contains the appropriate ethical statements.

For studies directly involving patients or other human participants, the manuscript must report approval or authorization from the competent Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee, or equivalent body, together with informed-consent procedures where applicable.

Under the Journal’s current operational framework, studies involving healthcare professionals only do not routinely require formal approval from an Institutional Review Board or Research Ethics Committee. Authors must nevertheless report compliance with applicable legislation, institutional requirements, data-protection rules, and consent procedures.

Quality Improvement Reports must include formal authorization from the management or institutional leadership of the healthcare organization in which the activity was conducted.

Reviewers must alert the Editor confidentially if they suspect:

• plagiarism, duplicate publication, or substantial overlap with existing work;
• data fabrication, falsification, selective reporting, or inappropriate manipulation;
• inappropriate alteration or duplication of images;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding;
• inappropriate authorship or contributorship;
• research conducted without the required ethical approval, authorization, or consent;
• breaches of confidentiality, privacy, or personal-data protection;
• manipulation of the peer-review or publication process;
• unlawful, discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise inappropriate content.

Reviewers should report concerns to the Editor and should not independently contact the authors, their institutions, research participants, or other third parties.

Structure and Tone of the Review

A useful review report should:

• begin with a concise summary of the manuscript’s aim, design, and principal contribution;
• provide an overall assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and limitations;
• distinguish clearly between major comments and minor comments;
• identify methodological or interpretive concerns precisely;
• explain why a requested revision is necessary;
• provide specific, constructive, and actionable recommendations;
• avoid vague statements or requests for unnecessary expansion;
• avoid requiring authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless it is directly and objectively relevant;
• maintain a professional, objective, inclusive, and respectful tone;
• avoid personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory expressions, or unsupported allegations.

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript for the authors. Language or presentation problems should be identified clearly, but the review should remain focused primarily on scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clarity of reporting.

Presentation and Reporting Quality

Reviewers should assess whether:

• the title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript;
• the abstract is consistent with the main text;
• the manuscript is logically organized and understandable;
• tables and figures are necessary, legible, accurate, and correctly cited;
• results are presented without selective omission or unnecessary duplication;
• supplementary files provide relevant supporting information;
• abbreviations, units, terminology, and nomenclature are used consistently;
• statements concerning microorganisms, antimicrobial resistance, healthcare-associated infections, infection-control measures, and clinical practices are scientifically accurate;
• additional methodological information or supporting data are required to evaluate the manuscript adequately.

Requests for Additional Citations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are necessary to correct an omission, support an important claim, acknowledge relevant evidence, or improve the scientific balance of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to their own work, to the Journal, or to particular authors or institutions. Every citation request should be scientifically justified.

Timeline and Communication

• Reviewers should accept or decline the invitation within the timeframe indicated by the Editorial Office.
• A reviewer who initially accepts but later becomes unable to complete the review should inform the Editor promptly.
• Requests for an extension should be submitted before the review deadline whenever possible.
• The completed review must be submitted through the Journal’s online manuscript management system.
• Reviewers must not communicate directly with the authors.
• Questions concerning the manuscript or review process must be addressed to the Editorial Office through the submission system.

Submitting the Review Report

The online review form may include:

1. a text area for comments intended for the authors;
2. a separate text area for confidential comments intended only for the Editor;
3. a rating form covering relevant aspects of scientific and editorial quality;
4. an optional area for uploading an annotated file;
5. a final recommendation menu.

Annotated manuscripts must not contain the reviewer’s name, initials, institutional details, tracked-change username, or other identifying metadata.

Recommendation Categories

Reviewers may select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept Submission: the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Revisions Required: the manuscript may be suitable for publication after specific revisions that can be evaluated by the Editor without necessarily initiating a new external review.
• Resubmit for Review: substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript should undergo a new round of peer review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: the manuscript may have scientific value but is not sufficiently aligned with the aims, scope, or readership of JNIPC.
• Decline Submission: the manuscript contains fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or reporting limitations that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

The recommendation must be consistent with the written review. Reviewers provide an advisory opinion; the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Editor.

Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is based on:

• the reviewers’ evaluations;
• the authors’ responses and revisions;
• the Editor’s independent assessment of methodological rigor, ethical compliance, originality, and scientific contribution;
• relevance to the Journal’s aims, scope, and readership;
• compliance with the Journal’s editorial policies and publication standards.

Additional reviewers may be invited when reports are incomplete, conflicting, highly specialized, or insufficient to support a decision.

The Editor is not required to follow the recommendation of a single reviewer. The final decision may differ from the reviewers’ recommendations when justified by the complete editorial assessment.

ANIPIO, iEditore, sponsors, institutional partners, financial contributors, and other external parties must not influence the scientific evaluation of individual manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to JNIPC.

Quality and Professional Conduct

Reviewer comments must remain professional, polite, constructive, and evidence-based, including when the recommendation is rejection.

Reviewers should aim to help authors understand the scientific reasons underlying their assessment and, where feasible, identify realistic ways to improve the manuscript or future research.

Reviews containing offensive, discriminatory, defamatory, hostile, or otherwise inappropriate language may be edited, returned for revision, or excluded from the editorial decision process.

Recognition of Reviewer Activity

Reviewer identities and reports remain confidential unless a different arrangement has been explicitly approved by the Journal.

Where supported by the Journal’s systems, reviewers may receive confirmation or certification of completed review activity. Such recognition must not disclose confidential information concerning the manuscript, authors, editorial decision, or contents of the review.

Reviewer Contact

Questions relating to an invitation, assignment, deadline, conflict of interest, or technical problem should be submitted through the Journal’s online editorial system or addressed to the JNIPC Editorial Office.