The journal of Evidence-Based Nursing Research is an international open-access journal that provides a platform for exchanging knowledge, research findings, and nursing practice experience. EBNR is currently hosted on African Journals OnLine (AJOL), the world's largest and preeminent platform of African-published scholarly journals. You can view the journal's entry at AJOL here.
Aims and Scope
The EBNR aims to promote excellence in nursing and health care by disseminating the latest, evidence-based, and high-quality research findings, specialist knowledge, and discussion of professional issues that reflect the diversity of nursing. With an international readership and authorship, EBNR allows communications among nurses and health care practitioners worldwide and enhances the evidence-based scholarly article in all nursing aspects, including practice, education, research, management, and policy. It is committed to advancing international understanding and development of nursing and midwifery in Africa and the Middle East region both as a professional and academic discipline.
The journal calls for original research manuscripts, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, theory or philosophy of nursing, practice improvement initiatives, research briefs, methodologic development, book reviews, news and announcements, reports of scale and instrument development, and single case reports, which will meet the journal's high academic and ethical standards. The journal values critical scholarly debate of issues that have strategic significance for educators, practitioners, leaders, and policymakers of nursing and related health care professionals that support the interdisciplinary nature of the health care workforce. EBNR also supports nursing student research publications, articles based on content previously made public on the preprint server, articles extracted from theses, and project reports. EBNR is issued four times a year Jan-March/April-June/Jul-September/October-December.
The journal screen for plagiarism by anti-plagiarism software. Any case of plagiarism will be judged by EE publishers based on its parameters. If plagiarism is discovered by an editorial board member, reviewer, or publisher at any point of the article process—before or after acceptance, during proofreading, or at the article proof stage—the article will be rejected. We will notify the author(s) and request that they rewrite the content or cite the sources from which the content was derived. If more than 25% of the paper is plagiarized, the article will be withdrawn, and the author will be informed.
The journal employs a business model where the revenue is entirely from author publishing fees. We do not use a subscription-based model as all our articles are open-access. Also, we do not allow any form of advertising on the website's journal.
Transfer of copyright
The Corresponding Author transfers and assigns to the journal, during the full term of copyright and any extensions or renewals of that term, all copyright in and to the Work, including but not limited to the right to publish, republish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the work in electronic and print editions of the journal and derivative works throughout the world, in all languages and all media now known or later developed, and to license or permit others to do so.
Authors' retained rights
Notwithstanding the above, the Authors retain all proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights, in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
The journal grants back to the Authors the following distinct rights:
- The non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display the work in any medium in connection with the authors' academic and professional activities, including but not limited to teaching, conference presentations, and lectures.
- The non-exclusive right to create derivative works from the work.
- The non-exclusive right to make full use of the work in future research and publications, including the right to republish the work in whole or in part in any book that one or more of the authors may write or edit after the work has appeared.
- The non-exclusive right to authorize others to make use of the work.
- The non-exclusive right to make both the preprint and the final published version available in digital form over the Internet, including but not limited to a website under the control of one or more of the authors or their employers or through open access digital repositories such as those maintained by institutions, scholarly societies, or funding agencies.
When distributing or republishing the work as authorized above, the Corresponding Author agrees to credit the journal as the place of first publication.
The corresponding author represents and warrants that the work is the authors' original work and that it does not violate or infringe the law or the rights of any third party and, specifically, that the work contains no matter that is defamatory or that infringes any literary or proprietary rights, intellectual property rights, or any rights of privacy. The corresponding author also warrants that he or she has the full power to make the agreement, and if the work was prepared jointly, the corresponding author agrees to inform the authors of the terms of the agreement and obtain their written permission to sign on their behalf. The corresponding author agrees to hold the journal harmless from any breach of the foretasted representations. Information on financial support should be provided by authors.
In consideration of the corresponding author's grant of rights, the journal agrees to publish the work, attributing the work to the authors.
The articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, redistribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license.
Duplicate submission and redundant publication
The improper division of study outcomes into more than one article (also known as salami slicing) can lead to rejection or a request to consolidate submitted manuscripts, as well as the correction of published articles. Duplicate publication of the same, or a very similar, article may result in the later article's retraction, as well as sanctions against the authors.
Ethics and Malpractice Statement
EBNR is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent publication malpractice. Our policies are based on COPE's Core practices which can be accessed here: COPE Core Practices.
The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship.
- Made a substantial contribution to the concept design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data,
- Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,
- Approved the version to be published.
The author should meet the conditions of all the above points. Each author should have participated sufficiently to take public responsibility for the appropriate portion of the content.
When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship.
Acquisition of funding, a collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship, although contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgment section.
Principal authorship, authorship orders, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student's dissertation or thesis.
The corresponding author is the one who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal's administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements are properly completed.
The corresponding author is the person who signs the publication agreement on behalf of all of the authors and whose contact details are included in the article. After submission, they should be available to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any request from the journal for data or additional information that arise after submission.
This journal permits and encourages authors to post items submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories both before and after publication while providing bibliographic details that credit, if applicable, its publication in this journal.
We recommend exploring the following sources to improve the quality of manuscripts before submission:
Peer review process
EBNR published by EEP employed a double-blind peer review process for all submissions preceded by editorial review and followed by an editorial prefinal copy revision for the reviewers' comment to warrant that all the reviewers’ comments are fulfilled. Editors have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
The editor initially evaluates all manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this point are either insufficiently original, contain significant scientific errors, have weak grammar or English language, or fall beyond the journal's aims and scope. Those that meet the minimum requirements are usually sent to at least two experts for evaluation. Manuscripts authored by editors or editorial board members are also subject to a double-blind peer review like all manuscripts.
The journal employs double-blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our database is constantly updated. Referees are asked to assess whether the manuscript is original, methodologically sound, and adheres to relevant ethical guidelines, findings are presented and interpreted, and endorsed the assumptions, previous related work is correctly referenced. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process, but the journal provides proofreading services for free for all the manuscripts accepted for publication.
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. It usually takes two weeks. Should the referee's reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In case of manuscript rejection, the editor's decision will be sent to the author with reasons for rejection. The recommendations made by the referees, which usually include verbatim comments, are recorded in a journal reviewing checklist that includes all the manuscript sections. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees, who may request another manuscript revision. A journal editor will final revise the manuscript to ensure that all the modifications recommended have been done. Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision, to accept or reject the article.
The journal screen for plagiarism by anti-plagiarism software. EE publishers will judge any plagiarism case based on its parameters. If plagiarism is discovered by an editorial board member, reviewer, or publisher at any point of the article process—before or after acceptance, during proofreading, or at the article proof stage—the article will be rejected. We will notify the author(s) and request that they rewrite the content or cite the sources from which the content was derived. If more than 25% of the paper is plagiarized, the article will be withdrawn, and the author will be informed.
Reviewer selection process
Reviewers for the journal are selected from a diversity of regions, institutions, and specialties. We value diversity of thought in our research publication process, and so maintaining a diverse team of reviewers is very important for us. For each manuscript submitted, we match a reviewer who is an expert in its nursing specialty or healthcare field. If a manuscript touches multiple nursing specialties, it is sent for review to a subject matter expert in each specialty. If there is no consensus between the reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer for the final decision.
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere
Peer reviewers should:
- Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess on time.
- Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
- Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
- Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
- Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
- Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and on time.
- Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
- Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
Expectations during the peer-review process on being approached to review peer reviewers should:
Respond in a reasonable time frame, especially if they cannot do the review without intentional delay.
- Declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they can assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
- Only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident, they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed on the time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
- Declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
- Follow journals' policies on situations they consider representing a conflict for reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g., within the past three years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
- Review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions, and the journals' criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
- Ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
- Not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
- Decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
- Decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
- Decline to review if asked to review a very similar manuscript to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
- Decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g., it uses open to review and releases the reviewers' names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal's review policies.
During the review, peer reviewers should:
- Notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that was not apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased review.
- Refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
- Read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g., Reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files), and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is not clear, and request any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review.
- Notify the journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they should not wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process.
- Not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal's records and can also receive due to credit for their efforts.
- Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
- Contact the journal if circumstances arise that will prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so.
- In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the author's identity, notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
- Notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
- Not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
- Ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
- Not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.
When preparing the report, peer reviewers should:
- Bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgment, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
- Make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
- Follow journals' instructions on the specific feedback required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized.
- Be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback to help the authors improve their manuscripts.
- Not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
- Be specific in their criticisms and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
- Remember it is the authors' paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
- Be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
- Make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
- Not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest another person has done the review.
- Not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
- Not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors' work that is mentioned in the manuscript.
- Ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors.
- Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.
- Not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work merely to increase the reviewer's (or their associates') citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
- Determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing.
- If they are the editor handling a manuscript and decide themselves to provide a review of that manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review if the journal operates blind review; providing a review for a manuscript being handled by another editor at the journal can be treated as any other review.
Expectations after reviewing:
- Continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
- Respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
- Contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
- Read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
- Try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.
Long-term archiving and preservation
All submitted manuscripts in previous issues are found on the Archives page. In addition, EBNR uses AWS Cloud (Amazon Web Services) to store an electronic backup of all journal content for long-term preservation. Furthermore, all EBNR journal content is also archived on AJOL.
- There is no guarantee that the information contained in the online journal's site is identical to the print version.
- The publisher does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the online version of the Journal.
- The publisher will have no liability to any person for any loss or damage arising out of the use of, or inability to use, the online version of the Journal.
- If at any time, due to any legal reason, if the journal stops accepting manuscripts or could not publish already accepted manuscripts, we will have the right to cancel all or any one of the manuscripts without any compensation or return any kind of processing cost.
- If access is suspended or interrupted owing to circumstances beyond the publisher's control, liability shall be limited to restoring access as soon as is practicable.