Journal of Advanced Nursing

Cover image for Vol. 74 Issue 3

Edited By: Editor-in-Chief: Roger Watson; Editors: YingJuan Cao, Robyn Gallagher, Mark Hayter, Cindi Logsdon, Jane Noyes & Doris Yu

Impact Factor: 1.998

ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2016: 13/116 (Nursing)

Online ISSN: 1365-2648

For Referees

This page contains information and resources for JAN reviewers.

If you are not currently a reviewer for the journal but would be interested, please contact the editorial office at Please note that we generally require reviewers to have a good level of experience of publishing in peer-reviewed journals and preferably to also hold a PhD.

Wiley Reviewer Resources Centre
Detailed information about peer review, tips for reviewing, and ethical guidance can be found in Wiley's Reviewer Resource Centre at

Ethical Guidelines
COPE has published its Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, outlining "the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process". These can be accessed here.

Guide to reviewing manuscripts
A useful guide to reviewing journal manuscripts is available on Nurse Author & Editor.

Wiley has partnered with Publons to give you official recognition for your contribution to peer review. This partnership means you can opt-in to have your reviews for participating Wiley journals automatically added to your Publons profile.

Please consider joining the JAN Reviewers' Group on LinkedIn. As well as providing news and useful links, the group also gives reviewers and editors the opportunity to discuss matters relating to peer review.

Wiley Exchanges Blog
The Wiley Exchanges Blog includes some interesting posts about peer review.

Reviewer Discount
The quality of JAN is dependent on our expert reviewers. In recognition of their valued contribution, we offer a 30% discount on Wiley books to all reviewers. To take advantage of this, please visit and use code JRREV in the promotion code field (discount excludes major reference works).

It is very hard to specify what a good review is and to give advice to new reviewers who ask for advice. As editors we often discuss this issue and at JAN we spend a great deal of time at our management meetings discussing the quality of reviews and who the best reviewers are. The review process is crucial to the enterprise of academic publishing and we have decided to provide some examples of what we consider to be good reviews. The reviews are all different but they have some features in common: they are all polite, they are all specific about what needs to be changed and where, and they are all meant to be helpful to the editor processing the manuscript and the authors who may be asked to revise their paper. I hope that you find these useful.

Roger Watson

Other ways to connect:

Visit and contribute to JAN interactive

Follow JAN on Twitter