The JKPMHN uses a double-blind peer review system to improve the quality of manuscripts. Reviewers have the professional responsibility to assist authors in improving their manuscript by giving them expert advice in the peer review process. Reviewers also contribute to editorial decisions. When reviewers are asked to review a manuscript, they should keep all information about the manuscript confidential. Reviewers should not use ideas expressed in the manuscript for their own research without the authors’ consent, and they should not contact the authors personally without permission from the editor. Reviewers should review the manuscript objectively and appropriately without any bias or personal interest. If reviewers have a conflict of interest when reviewing the manuscript, they should consult with the editor. Reviewers are required to respond to the invitation to review the manuscript by the scheduled time, and to finish reviewing the manuscript in a timely manner. Reviewers should present their comments about the manuscript to the authors in a courteous manner. When reviewers suspect misconduct or ethical issues in the manuscript, they should immediately inform the editor and cooperate with the editor regarding any next steps to be taken. The resolution process will be initiated following the flowchart provided by the COPE (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

▪ Double-blind Peer Review

The JKPMHN uses a double-blind peer review system to improve the quality of manuscripts.

▪ Criteria and Procedures of Reviewer Selection

• 1. Qualification: The reviewers are selected according to the following criteria.

  1) Reviewer of the JKPMHN.
  - Should be qualified to review manuscripts through guidance or reviewing a thesis related to this society.
  - Should possess a doctoral degree, be a university professor or person who is considered to have equal qualifications, and be familiar with the latest knowledge in each research field.
  
  2) Reviewers are selected upon consideration of the research field as well as conceptual and regional distribution.

• 2. Member Quota: The number of reviewers is around 60, including an English proofreader.
• 3. Procedure: In the event the editor-in-chief recommends a member who meets the criteria of reviewers among nursing professors worldwide, the editorial board shall review the recommended members, and the president of the academy shall appoint said member as a reviewer upon receiving approval from the board of directors of the KAPMHN.
• 4. Service Term: Review members have a term of two years and may be reappointed.
• 5. Special Reviewer: If external reviewers are required for the special review of a manuscript, the editorial board may appoint special reviewers and entrust them with review of said manuscript.
• 6. The review of manuscripts follows separate regulations upon review.

▪ Regulations on Review

• 1. The purpose of these regulations is to define matters regarding the review of manuscripts submitted to the JKPMHN.
• 2. No paper that has violated the ethics regulations of this academic society shall be published.
• 3. Master's theses or doctoral dissertations must be clearly stated as such, and they must be reviewed by reviewers from the Korean Academy of Psychiatry and Mental Health Nursing. The degree holder must be the first author of the material submitted for publication.
• 4. Manuscripts that do not meet the manuscript qualification and the submission requirements shall be rejected.
• 5. Three review members are assigned for each submitted manuscript (excluding English proofreaders), and the reviewers’ names shall be disclosed for each manuscript.
• 6. The editorial board shall recommend appropriate compilation members and the president of the academy shall appoint them as reviewers.
• 7. Manuscript reviews are performed based on the reviewer's evaluation with the manuscript review evaluation form that follows the quantitative research, qualitative research, review paper, Q-methodology, or conceptual analysis.
• 8. Review results are judged as 'accepted (no correction necessary)', ‘accepted after revisions (minor revision)', 'review after revisions (major revision)', or 'rejected (no publication)', and the decision of whether or not to publish a manuscript is based on the review results.
  • 1) Accepted: Manuscript may be published without changes or revisions.
  • 2) Accepted after revisions (minor revision): The authors shall revise in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and the reviewers or the editorial board shall confirm the revisions.
  • 3) Review after revision (major revision): The authors shall revise in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and the reviewers shall review the revised manuscript and decide whether or not to accept it.
  • 4) Rejected (no publication): Only when the contents of the manuscript fall into any one of the following cases:
    • (1) The manuscript lacks nursing significance in the research theme.
    • (2) The contents plagiarized previous studies.
    • (3) The research results of the manuscript lack reliability or validity.
    • (4) In the evaluation form (results), over 30% of the items are graded as 'very poor.’
    • (5) The manuscript is considered impossible to revise.
    • (6) Manuscripts that are judged as ‘rejected (no publication)’ cannot be resubmitted.
• 9. The manuscript can be published if at least two of the three reviewers evaluate it as ‘accepted’ or ‘accepted after revisions (minor revision)’.
• 10. The review contents and results shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the author.
• 11. Regardless of the manuscript review results, if the editorial board deems that the manuscript does not fit the guidelines for submission to the JKPMHN, publication of the manuscript may neither be adopted nor rejected.
• 12. Reviewers shall undertake manuscript review within two weeks of receiving a manuscript, and they shall send the review results through the online submission system.
• 13. If the authors fail to submit the revised manuscript within the due date, the process of review is regarded as withdrawn.
• 14. After the final manuscript is submitted, the final manuscript shall go through editorial calibration and the review process of the editorial board until the publication process. Corresponding authors are obliged to faithfully reflect the opinions of the editorial board, even those that have passed the final review, and are obliged to carefully check the proofs and the correction of the printed version before publication. Authors are responsible for any errors identified after publication.
• 15. Should any author object to or appeal against the results of the review, the author can send a letter to the editorial board to either express dissatisfaction or appeal. The editorial board reports the final decision to the corresponding author after the editorial board’s discussion and decision. For more information, contact the manager of the review process (wanjupark@knu.ac.kr) or the administration manager of the editorial board (cmsill@sungshin.ac.kr).

▪ Peer Review Process

• 1. A manuscript is first reviewed for its format and adherence to the aims and scope of the journal. If the manuscript meets these two criteria, it is dispatched to three investigators in the field with relevant knowledge. The manuscript compilation committee initially confirms that the authors are qualified for manuscript submission to the Journal, and notification of the manuscript reception is sent to the authors via email. Manuscripts that do not meet the submission requirements will not be processed for peer review.
  
  Prior to review, all submitted manuscripts are inspected by Similarity Check powered by iThenticate (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/), a plagiarism-screening tool.
• 2. The peer review for the submitted manuscript is conducted by three reviewers who fit with the general concept and the detailed area of the manuscript’s research field. The authors’ names and affiliations are removed during peer review (double-blind peer review).
• 3. After a manuscript has been reviewed by the review members, an editorial board member reviews the manuscript. At that time, if the editorial board member finds that the requested corrections were not fully made, the board member may request re-correction. Assuming that the manuscript is sent to reviewers, the JKPMHN waits to receive opinions from all reviewers before proceeding further. Then, the editor-in-chief of the JKPMHN makes a final decision on manuscript publication based on the reviewers’ critiques and recommendations, as well as the scientific merits of the manuscript.
• 4. The acceptance criteria for all papers are based on the quality and originality of the research and its scientific significance. Acceptance of the manuscript is decided based on the critiques and recommended decisions of the reviewers. An initial decision is typically made within two weeks of receipt of a manuscript, and the reviewers’ comments are sent to the corresponding author by e-mail. The corresponding authors should provide a complementary revision, and the revised manuscript, along with the complementary revision record, should be submitted by the online paper acceptance system within two weeks. Contents corrected according to the indications of the review board members are listed by category and the corrected portions are indicated. If a further revision period is required, the author should contact the editorial office.
  
  *Modified report based on review results
  Paper title:
  Reception number: Ex)2020-0051
  
  Contents of paper review Response and corrected contents
  
  Paper revisions that are required for the printing of a manuscript are done by the authors. The final decision on acceptance/ rejection for publication is forwarded to the corresponding author from the editor.
• 5. Peer review process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board.
  All manuscripts from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board are processed in the same way as other unsolicited manuscripts. During the review process, submitters do not engage in the selection of reviewers or the decision process. Editors do not handle their own manuscripts, although they are commissioned ones.