This letter discusses flaws in peer review and editorial process in EJCN, suggesting improvements.
Journal Article Corrected proof Response to the Letter to the editor – 'Peer review and editorial process is not flawless, even at EJCN' by L. Hinterbuchner Get access Betul Tosun, Betul Tosun Faculty of Nursing, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye Corresponding author. Tel: +90 312 324 20 13 (186), Email: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4505-5887 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Serap Güngör Ünal, Serap Güngör Ünal Vocational School of Health Services, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0854-6350 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Esengül Ağkale, Esengül Ağkale Kahramanmaraş State Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Senem Andı Senem Andı Mersin Yenişehir District Health Directorate, Mersin, Türkiye Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, zvaf175, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf175 Published: 22 September 2025 Article history Received: 26 August 2025 Accepted: 27 August 2025 Corrected and typeset: 22 September 2025 Published: 22 September 2025
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tosun et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: