Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All the content of the journal is subject to double blind peer – review. In any case one reviewer recommends and the other rejects, such papers will be sent for third review. All the judgments will be objective and the contents will be checked for plagiarism and a maximum of 15% plagiarized material will be considered for a paper.

Peer review committee members:

Dr.Radha Ramana Sree

The Registrar

Andhara Pradesh State Nursing and Midwife Council

Dr. B. Valli

Principal, Govt. College of Nursing


Dr. V. Kumari MSc (N), PhD

Principal (Retired)

College of Nursing Madras Medical College

Chennai – 600 003

Dr. Vijayakumar


Right School and College of Nursing

Vanagaram, Chennai -600095,Tamilnadu.

Dr. C. Kulanthaiammal


Bhai Gurdas Institute of Nursing

Sangrur, Punjab.




Columbia College of Nursing,71, Mariappanapalya

Gnanabharathi Bangalore – 56

Email :

Dr. V. Kumari MSc (N), PhD

Principal (Retired)

College of Nursing Madras Medical College

Chennai – 600 003

The peer review process is an essential element of the publication cycle.All manuscripts submitted to Narayana Nursing Journal will undergo extensive peer review by our Editorial Board Members and blind reviews by a of 5 reviewers. Following is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts undergo.

Initial Evaluation

Once we receive a manuscript, our Editorial Office runs a plagiarism check and screens the manuscript to decide whether or not it should be sent for peer review. It is therefore very important for authors to make sure that their manuscript is well written and is of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office mainly checks the following:

  1. Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope?
  2. Is the content of the manuscript is good enough to make it worth reviewing?
  3. Has the manuscript been submitted or published elsewhere?

If manuscript fails to meet the journal’s requirements, it is immediately rejected.

Peer Review

After manuscripts clear the initial screening, The academic editor will send the manuscript to a minimum of 5 reviewers for peer review. Reviewers submit the evaluation results along with their recommendations as one of the following actions:

  1. Accept
  2. Minor Revision
  3. Major Revision
  4. Reject & Resubmit
  5. Reject

We have a double blinded peer-review process in which the reviewers and the authors do not have access to the information of each other. The reviewers will ensure the highest ethical standards of evaluation.

Final Decision

Once the reviewers have submitted their comments, the handling editor will be notified. The handling editor will then send their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief. /Editor-in-Chief delivers and informs the author of the final decision.

If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, authors will be required to revise their manuscript according to the Editor’s suggestions and submit a revised version of their manuscript for further evaluation.

Our Editorial Workflow allows editors to reject manuscripts due to a number of reasons including inappropriateness of the subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of the results. We ensure high quality and unbiased peer-review by sending the manuscript for evaluation to a range of reviewers in different parts of the nation.

Complaints If authors feel any inconvenience in the publication process, they may submit their complaints to