Initial Screening

All submissions to Modern Nursing and Public Health undergo an initial technical screening by the Editorial Office. The Journal operates a strict double-anonymous peer-review process. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process, and all identifying information is removed from manuscripts prior to review.

This process ensures that the manuscript:
a) is complete in all its required components;
b) is correctly anonymized for double-anonymous review;
c) does not contain plagiarized or improperly reused content.

All manuscripts are screened using Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. Similarity reports are evaluated by the Editorial Office to identify potential concerns regarding originality, plagiarism, or inappropriate textual overlap.

Editorial Assessment

Eligible submissions are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, who assesses:

a) suitability for the Journal's aims, scope, and article section;
b) originality, scientific relevance, and methodological quality;
c) relevance and potential contribution to the Journal's readership.

Particular consideration is given to the manuscript's contribution to nursing science, midwifery, public health, clinical practice, professional education, healthcare organization, and related interdisciplinary health sciences.

Manuscripts not meeting these criteria may be promptly rejected. If deemed appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief sends the manuscript for peer review by assigning at least two independent reviewers.

Peer Review Process

The Journal adopts a double-anonymous peer-review system: reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other; only the Editorial Manager and Editor-in-Chief can access their identities for the purposes of editorial management.

All research manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are not members of the Journal's editorial team.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, provided that they are independent, appropriately qualified, and free from conflicts of interest.

Reviewers have 7 days to accept or decline the assignment and 2–4 weeks to return their evaluation. Review reports remain confidential.

Editorials and correspondence may be reviewed at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Selection and Verification

Modern Nursing and Public Health verifies the identity, expertise, and institutional affiliation of all reviewers before assigning a manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication record, academic credentials, and ability to provide an independent and scientifically rigorous assessment of the submitted work.

The Journal encourages the involvement of reviewers with expertise in nursing, midwifery, public health, clinical healthcare, research methodology, healthcare management, professional education, and other disciplines relevant to the manuscript under consideration.

Suggested reviewers provided by authors are subject to independent editorial evaluation and are not automatically selected. The Journal does not rely exclusively on author-suggested reviewers.

General Principles and Ethics of Peer Review

• The reviewer supports the Editor by evaluating the quality, originality, scientific relevance, and methodological rigor of the manuscript.
• Maintain objectivity, confidentiality, and declare any conflicts of interest.
• Confidential comments to the Editor may be added when appropriate.
• Do not accept a review assignment if the topic is outside your expertise or if a conflict of interest exists.

Before Starting the Review

• Check the Journal's Guidelines for Authors and Guidelines for Reviewers, including the peer-review model, report structure, and required manuscript format.
• Decline the review if you do not have sufficient time to complete it adequately.
• Do not use generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools to produce, rewrite, or edit the review text. Reviewers must ensure that their reports are their own intellectual work and must not use external tools in a way that compromises confidentiality or the integrity of the review process.

For full details regarding confidentiality, permitted uses, and reviewer responsibilities, please refer to the Journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

• Scientific originality and relevance.
• Methodological soundness and quality of reporting.
• Adequacy of statistical analyses, if applicable.
• Consistency between objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Completeness and currency of references.
• Presence of ethical statements and proper handling of sensitive data.
• For review papers: completeness of the literature search, transparency of methods, and balanced discussion.

Structure and Tone of the Review

• Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript, including its aims, methods, and main findings.
• Clearly distinguish between major issues and minor issues.
• Provide constructive, actionable comments to help authors improve the manuscript.
• Maintain a professional, objective, and respectful tone.
• Insert confidential comments to the Editor separately if needed.

Presentation and Reporting Quality

• Assess clarity and quality of figures, tables, and supplementary files.
• Verify that results and conclusions are presented transparently.
• Request additional information when necessary, including supplementary data or methodological details.
• Evaluate the manuscript's adherence to applicable reporting standards, including relevant EQUATOR Network guidelines.

Timeline and Communication

• Accept or decline the review invitation within the requested timeframe.
• Inform the Editor promptly in case of delays.
• Submit the review through the Journal's manuscript management system (OJS).

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses and revisions, the methodological rigor of the manuscript, and its overall scientific contribution.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• acceptance;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• resubmission for full review;
• rejection.

Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary. Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial, financial, institutional, or other external interests.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline the invitation when a conflict could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality. Any uncertainty must be disclosed to the Editor before accepting the assignment.

Potential conflicts may include financial interests, personal or professional relationships, institutional affiliations, research collaborations, academic competition, or any other circumstances that could compromise independent judgment.

Reviewers must not use privileged information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage.

Ethical Considerations During Review

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they suspect:

• plagiarism or overlap with existing publications;
• data fabrication or manipulation;
• ethical violations involving human participants or animals;
• breaches of confidentiality.

Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with colleagues or share its content in any form. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.

Any attempt to manipulate the peer-review process, including suggesting fabricated identities or misrepresenting expertise, is considered a serious breach of publication ethics.

Quality, Language, and Professional Conduct

Comments must remain polite, constructive, and evidence-based. Even in the case of rejection, reviewers should aim to help authors improve their research.

Manuscripts submitted to Modern Nursing and Public Health may be written in English or Polish. Reviewers should evaluate the scientific content, methodological quality, and clarity of reporting in the language of submission.

While manuscripts should be understandable and written in appropriate scientific language, the Journal provides language editing for accepted papers. Reviewers should therefore focus primarily on scientific validity, methodological rigor, and the relevance of the findings rather than minor linguistic imperfections.

Submission of Reviewer Comments

The review form includes:

A) Text boxes for comments to authors and confidential notes to the Editor;
B) A rating card with five evaluation levels (Excellent to Unacceptable);
C) An optional file upload area;
D) A final recommendation dropdown:

• Accept submission
• Revision required
• Resubmit for review
• Resubmit elsewhere
• Decline submission