Our peer review and publication policy ensures that all submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough and unbiased evaluation process, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of nursing and midwifery.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

  1. Submission Check:

    • Upon submission, each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editorial team to ensure it aligns with the journal's scope and adheres to the submission guidelines.
  2. Plagiarism Screening:

    • Manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection using reliable software to ensure originality. Submissions with significant plagiarism are rejected outright.
  3. Editorial Assessment:

    • The editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s quality, relevance, and scientific validity. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or are out of scope are rejected without external review.

Type of Peer Review

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review:
    • GJNMID employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and the authors are anonymized to ensure impartial and unbiased evaluations.

Selection of Reviewers

  1. Reviewer Expertise:

    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, qualifications, and experience in the relevant field. The goal is to match manuscripts with reviewers who have the appropriate knowledge to provide a thorough and informed assessment.
  2. Conflict of Interest:

    • Potential reviewers are asked to disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence their review. Reviewers with conflicts of interest are excluded from the review process for that manuscript.
  3. Invitation to Review:

    • Selected reviewers are invited to review the manuscript. Upon acceptance, they are given a deadline to complete their review.

Reviewer Reports

  1. Evaluation Criteria:

    • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on criteria such as originality, methodology, clarity, significance, and adherence to ethical standards.
  2. Constructive Feedback:

    • Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Comments should be professional, respectful, and focused on the content.
  3. Recommendation:

    • Reviewers recommend one of the following actions:
      • Accept without revisions
      • Minor revisions
      • Major revisions
      • Reject

Editorial Decision

  1. Review Synthesis:

    • The editorial team synthesizes the reviewers' comments and recommendations to make an informed decision regarding the manuscript.
  2. Decision Categories:

    • Accepted: The manuscript meets all criteria and will be published with minimal or no revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes, which will be reviewed by the editorial team upon resubmission.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes. Authors must revise and resubmit the manuscript for another round of peer review.
    • Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.
  3. Notification to Authors:

    • The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improvement.


  1. Copy Editing and Proofing:

    • Accepted manuscripts undergo copy editing and typesetting. Authors are involved in the proofing process to ensure accuracy and clarity.
  2. Publication:

    • The final version of the manuscript is published online and made accessible through GJNMID channels and partner databases.
  3. Promotion:

    • Published articles are promoted through various platforms to enhance visibility and impact.


  1. Reviewer Anonymity:

    • The identity of reviewers is kept confidential to ensure an unbiased review process.
  2. Manuscript Confidentiality:

    • Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not disclose or discuss the manuscript with others except as authorized by the editor.

Ethical Considerations

  1. Ethical Standards:

    • GJNMID adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  2. Misconduct:

    • Any suspected cases of ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, are thoroughly investigated. Appropriate actions are taken in accordance with COPE guidelines.