Journal Logo

Information for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviews are extremely important to the editorial process and quality of the journal. A well-done review is also important to guide authors in revising their work. Here are our reviewer guidelines: 

Content of the Review

  • Your review should focus on the content of the manuscript, rather than editing it. We are interested in manuscripts that reflect the 'state of the science' and include practical application, as well. Is the content accurate and up-to-date?  Is there anything the author didn't include but should have?
  • You may want to check into sources cited by the author that are unfamiliar to you. Are the sources reliable, is the material accurately represented, or is it plagiarized? (We do run all submissions through a plagiarism detection software but if you notice something, please indicate that.) Authors should be citing primary sources.
  • If you recommend that the manuscript be revised, provide detailed comments to guide the author. If you are recommending that the manuscript be rejected, your narrative should indicate why, but do not spend unnecessary time on a manuscript that is fatally flawed. 

Please keep in mind that we are requiring manuscripts to be no longer than 12 double-spaced pages (exclusive of references, tables and figures), so if you suggest the author add content, please indicate how the author should better focus the manuscript or where to cut. 

Important: If the manuscript you are reviewing is for a column or department rather than a feature article or research, be mindful of the limited focus and length requirements. Most columns are three to six double-spaced pages; Viewpoints and Reflections are only 2-3 double-spaced pages. The reviewer form indicates the type of article for which the manuscript is being considered.

Tone of the Review

Please write your narrative in a non-judgmental style. Begin with the positives if possible. If you believe the manuscript should be revised, please be encouraging in your comments.  Refrain from disparaging, critical remarks that aren't constructive.

Conflicts of Interest

Please contact Diane Szulecki if you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this manuscript. We will ask you to destroy the manuscript, and we'll assign it to another reviewer. Conflict of interest may include:

  • Personal conflict; e.g., a personal relationship with the author or institution that could interfere with you providing an unbiased review. While we try to remove identifying information from the manuscript, you may be able to discern the author's identity in other ways.
  • Financial conflict, or holding a financial interest in a product, company, or organization discussed in the manuscript; e.g., holding stock in a drug company, or consulting with a particular health care organization.
  • Intellectual conflict, or holding a strong interest in seeing the manuscript published or not published.


Manuscripts should be treated as confidential material. If you want to solicit the expertise of another colleague to review it, please contact before doing so. Please destroy the manuscript once your review is completed. We recommend that you keep a copy of your review narrative for three months.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.

If you are interested in being a reviewer for AJN, please send your resume/CV to