General Information
• Ethics in Publication
• Double-blind Peer review process
• Language (usage and editing services)
• Review Criteria
• Production
• Submission of Manuscripts
• Preparation of Manuscript
• Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing
• Use of inclusive language
• Reporting sex- and gender-based analyses
• Sections of Manuscript (In Order)
• Copyright
• Open Access
• Correspondence
• Author contributions
• Open access
• Queries
• Peer review
• Double anonymized review
• Revised Submissions
• Data visualization
• Research data
• Offprints

Aims and scope

Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research is a refereed journal with an Editorial Board that meets high standards of academic and clinical expertise. The journal reflects the broad interests of nurses and the nursing profession. Papers are invited on contemporary clinical, professional and policy issues of interest to nurses such as:
  • Original clinical and educational research
  • Scholarly critique of policy and nursing issues
  • Clinical case reports
  • Historical or political critique of nursing and health care issues
In addition, Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research seeks to promote nursing through publication of reviews, nursing commentaries and letters.

Considerations specific to types of research designs

The editors require that manuscripts adhere to recognised reporting guidelines relevant to the research design; Randomised Control Trials, Cohort Studies, Observational studies, Non-randomised evaluations and qualitative research. Please submit a completed checklist from the appropriate reporting guidelines as an addendum to your covering letter to the editor.

Observational cohort, case control and cross sectional studies - STROBE - Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Quasi-experimental/non-randomised evaluations - TREND - Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs

Randomised (and quasi-randomised) controlled trial - CONSORT - Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Study of Diagnostic accuracy/assessment scale - STARD - Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Systematic Review of Controlled Trials - PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic Review of Observational Studies - MOOSE - Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Qualitative researchers are encouraged to consult the guideline listed below:

Qualitative studies - COREQ - Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., Craig, J., 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 19 (6), 349-357.

Ethics in Publication

This journal follows the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and requests authors to familarise themselves with these guidelines at: A few issues that authors need to pay particular attention to are set out below.
It is ethically questionable to break up or segment data from a single study to create different papers for publication, a practice called salami slicinga. If the authors have legitimate reasons for reporting separately on different parts of the same study, or the same data set, they should justify that to the editor at the time of submission. Equally, readers need to be aware that different aspects of the same study are being reported, thus the methods section of the submitted manuscript must clearly explain why the submitted paper is justified.

Double-blind Peer review process

Editors review all abstracts and using a triage-type checklist will make a rapid decision about whether the article is suitable for peer review in this journal. This rapid decision is of benefit for authors because if the paper is rejected reasons will be given and the author can consider whether to submit elsewhere without undue delay.

The most common reasons for initial rejection are:
1) not having prior institutional ethical approval for research and/or not demonstrating fully informed and fully free consent by participants;
2) not situating the research in the existing literature;
3) poor English and;
4) not following this guide for authors.

Language (usage and editing services)

Please write your text in good English (British usage is accepted). Authors who feel their English language manuscript may require editing to eliminate possible grammatical or spelling errors and to conform to correct scientific English may wish to use the English Language Editing service available from Elsevier's Author Services.

Review Criteria

Each paper that the editor/s assess as suitable for peer review is allocated to two reviewers who are asked to assess the paper against one of the Journal's three sets of reviewing criteria:
Articles submitted for review must be original works, and may not be submitted for review elsewhere whilst under review for the Journal.
After review, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the corresponding author on whether the paper has been accepted, rejected, or needs revision.

Categories of decision
  • Accept
  • Minor revisions (accept with revisions as advised by Editors)
  • Major revisions (possible acceptance following major revision and resubmission)
  • Reject
All efforts are made to provide fair and thorough reviews as speedily as possible. If an author(s) believes that a manuscript has been wrongly rejected, a detailed appeal letter that responds point-by-point to the reviewers' comments should be sent to the Editor who, after having reviewed the referees' reports, will make the final decision.

Reviewed by Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Team only
Letter to the Editor or a short comment on any topic of current interest
For these types of submissions, the corresponding author will receive a fairly rapid decision on publication.


Following acceptance of a manuscript; it will be transmitted to Elsevier's Production department.
The corresponding author will receive an acknowledgement. The paper will then be edited to comply with house style, and typeset.
The Publisher will email a proof to the corresponding author for checking before it is published.
The corresponding author is responsible for checking proofs thoroughly. By approving the proofs any editorial changes are being accepted.

Submission of Manuscripts

All manuscripts, correspondence and editorial material for publication is submitted online at simply need to "create a new account" (i.e., register) by following the online instructions, and using their own e-mail address and selected password. Authors can then submit manuscripts containing text, tables, and images (figures) online.

Authors can expect an initial decision, ie. to undergo peer-review, Accept or Reject on their submission within 7 business days.

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, authors can expect web publication of the article in final version on ScienceDirect in 4 weeks.

Preparation of Manuscript

Manuscripts being submitted should not exceed more than 5000 words. For a standard discussion, review, clinical paper or quantitative research articles, the maximum length is 30 double-spaced pages, with standard margins of 2.5 cm (1 inch) all around, and 11 point font size. (Inclusive of all Tables, Figures, and References, but excluding the Structured Abstract).

Supplementary material may be added without specific page limits. The readability of the article, however, must not depend upon access to supplementary materials.

First time authors are also strongly advised to co-author with an academic supervisor or senior colleague who has been successful in writing for publication.

Authors who feel their English language manuscript may require editing to eliminate possible grammatical or spelling errors and to conform to correct scientific.English may wish to use the English Language Editing service available from Elsevier'sWebShop ( or visit our customer support site( for more informationPage numbers and line numbers should be included for the convenience of the peer-reviewers.

Please have the following items ready before you log-on to the system. Every submission, regardless of category, must include the following.

(1) A Cover letter, including An Author Agreement stating:
o that the article is the author(s) original work
o the article has not received prior publication and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere
o that all authors have seen and approved the manuscript being submitted
o the author(s) abide by the copyright terms and conditions of Elsevier and the Australian College of Nursing

Conflict of Interest:
when the proposed publication concerns any commercial product, either directly or indirectly, the author must include in the cover letter a statement (1) indicating that he or she has no financial or other interest in the product or distributor of the product or (2) explaining the nature of any relation between himself or herself and the manufacturer or distributor of the product. Other kinds of associations, such as consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interests or patent-licensing arrangements, also must be disclosed. If, in the Editor's judgment, the information disclosed represents a potential conflict of interest, it may be made available to reviewers and may be published at the Editor's discretion; authors will be informed of the decision before publication.
o Sources of outside support for research:
including funding, equipment, and drugs.

An Ethical Statement for all Research papers, providing the following information:
o Whether the submitted manuscript involved human or animal research.
o If human or animal research was involved, whether Ethical Approval was granted for the Study as either (A) A quality assurance or practice improvement project, OR(B) A scientific research study. Note that research studies that do not have ethical approval prior to being conducted will not normally be published. We will consider publication, however, if the relevant Institutional Ethics Committee provides you with a letter saying that they do not normally provide ethical approval for studies such as the one you conducted.
o If the submitted manuscript is based on a research study which was subjected to a full review by an institutional ethics committee, please provide the following information:
- The name of the ethics committee
- The approval number
- The date of approval

Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

The below guidance only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of the research process.

Where authors use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, authors should only use these technologies to improve readability and language. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author, or be cited as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans, as outlined in Elsevier’s AI policy for authors.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by following the instructions below. A statement will appear in the published work. Please note that authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

Disclosure instructions
Authors must disclose the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript in the core manuscript file, before the References list. The statement should be placed in a new section entitled ‘Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process’.

Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

Note: If the manuscript is based on a quality assurance or practice improvement project this must be made clear in the text of the paper and address ethical issues concerning informed and free consent and confidentiality, as relevant.

If an Ethical Statement is not applicable, this must also be specified.

(4) Title Page should contain:

o Title. Short (12 words or fewer) and descriptive of the content of the article.
Abbreviations must not be used in the title.

o Running Head. Short title of 30 characters and spaces.
o Authors. List all authors by first name, all initials, family name and highest academic degree only using "RM, PhD" for holders of both qualifications.
List the address of all institutions where the work was done. List departmental affiliations of each author affiliated with that institution after each institutional address. Connect authors to departments using numbered superscripts.
o Corresponding Author. Provide the name, exact postal address with zip or postal code, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the author to whom communications, proofs, and requests for reprints should be sent.

(5) The complete manuscript, arranged as follows: (1) structured Abstract and Keywords (2) manuscript, including Acknowledgments/Disclosures (see below) and References, (3) Tables (each complete with title) and (4) Figures.

In addition, the following must be submitted direct to the Editorial Office if applicable:

o Written permission from the publisher (copyright holder) to reproduce any previously published table(s), illustration(s) or photograph(s) in both print and electronic media.
o Written permission from unmasked patients appearing in photographs.


Collegian will not consider articles submitted to pre-print repositories prior to, or during, peer review for publication

Use of inclusive language

Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. Content should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader; contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition; and use inclusive language throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, stereotypes, slang, reference to dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions. We advise to seek gender neutrality by using plural nouns ("clinicians, patients/clients") as default/wherever possible to avoid using "he, she," or "he/she." We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition unless they are relevant and valid. When coding terminology is used, we recommend to avoid offensive or exclusionary terms such as "master", "slave", "blacklist" and "whitelist". We suggest using alternatives that are more appropriate and (self-) explanatory such as "primary", "secondary", "blocklist" and "allowlist". These guidelines are meant as a point of reference to help identify appropriate language but are by no means exhaustive or definitive.

Reporting sex- and gender-based analyses

Reporting guidance
For research involving or pertaining to humans, animals or eukaryotic cells, investigators should integrate sex and gender-based analyses (SGBA) into their research design according to funder/sponsor requirements and best practices within a field. Authors should address the sex and/or gender dimensions of their research in their article. In cases where they cannot, they should discuss this as a limitation to their research's generalizability. Importantly, authors should explicitly state what definitions of sex and/or gender they are applying to enhance the precision, rigor and reproducibility of their research and to avoid ambiguity or conflation of terms and the constructs to which they refer (see Definitions section below). Authors can refer to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines and the SAGER guidelines checklist. These offer systematic approaches to the use and editorial review of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, outcome reporting and research interpretation - however, please note there is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex and gender.

Sex generally refers to a set of biological attributes that are associated with physical and physiological features (e.g., chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). A binary sex categorization (male/female) is usually designated at birth ("sex assigned at birth"), most often based solely on the visible external anatomy of a newborn. Gender generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man) and unchanging whereas these constructs actually exist along a spectrum and include additional sex categorizations and gender identities such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD) or identify as non-binary. Moreover, the terms "sex" and "gender" can be ambiguous—thus it is important for authors to define the manner in which they are used. In addition to this definition guidance and the SAGER guidelines, the resources on this page offer further insight around sex and gender in research studies.

Sections of Manuscript (In Order)

o Abstract & Keywords

The structured abstract should be under 250 words.

The structure of the abstract should be:
o Problem, or
o Background
o Question, Hypothesis or Aim
o Methods
o Findings
o Discussion
o Conclusion

The structured Abstract must not include references. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms. Ensure the name of the hospital or health service is not mentioned.

Keywords: Provide up to six keywords, at least three of which should be selected from those recommended by the Index Medicus Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) browser list (

o Main Text

For Original Research Articles references should not be more than 30, except with specific permission from the editor prior to submission), text should be organised as follows:

- Summary of Relevance. Before the Introduction, use the following headings to summarise (in 100 words or less) the contribution of your paper to the existing literature:
o Problem or Issue
o What is Already Known
o What this Paper Adds

An example of a Summary of Relevance:
Little is known about how nursing students manage exposure to horizontal violence. What is Already Known

Horizontal violence is widely reported in the nursing literature. Nursing students are vulnerable to horizontal violence from health professionals during their clinical placements.

What this Paper Adds
Evidence that nursing students often do not report episodes of horizontal violence due to lack of knowledge about supports available to them. In addition, many choose not to report this in order not to jeopardise future employment opportunities.

- Introduction (including problem, theoretical and/or research background, hypothesis or guiding question, definitions of key terms)
- Literature Review (critical but brief review of directly related literature)
- Participants, Ethics and Methods (described in detail).
- Findings or Results: for qualitative research results should be concisely reported in tables and figures, with brief text descriptions. For qualitative research a balance must be struck between conciseness and sufficient data to support the discussion and conclusion.
- Discussion (clear and concise interpretation of results)
- Conclusion (summarise key points)
- Acknowledgments and Disclosures

Regulatory Requirements in the Methods section:

o Research Protocol
Authors must state that the protocol has been approved by the appropriate Ethics Committee (state which).

o Human Investigation
The ethical guidelines that were followed by the investigators must be included in the Methods section of the manuscript. In Australia, all work should conform to the "Statement on Human Experimentation" by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. State clearly that the subject gave informed consent. Anonymity should be preserved.

o Humane Animal Care
The Methods section must contain a statement assuring that all animals received humane care in accordance with the "Statement on Animal Experimentation" by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, or its equivalent in other Countries (for example the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" published by the National Institutes of Health).


This section is compulsory. Grants, financial support and technical or other assistance are acknowledged at the end of the text before the references. All financial support for the project must be acknowledged. If there has been no financial assistance with the project, this must be clearly stated.

The role(s) of the funding organisation, if any, in the collection of data, its analysis and interpretation, and in the right to approve or disapprove publication of the finished manuscript must be described in the Methods section of the text.

o References
The author is responsible for providing accurate references. Referencing must follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.),2019 format. The reference list must include details only of those works cited in the text, and all references cited in text must be listed.

For more detailed information contact:

Editor-in-Chief, Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research, Australian College of Nursing, PO Box 219, DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 Telephone: 02 6283 3400, Fax: 02 6282 3565, Email: [email protected]

o Tables

Tables should be double-spaced on separate sheets (one to each page). Do not use vertical lines. Each table should be numbered (Arabic) and have a title above. Legends and explanatory notes should be placed below the table. Abbreviations used in the table follow the legend in alphabetic order. Lower case letter superscripts beginning with "a" and following in alphabetic order are used for notations of within-group and between-group statistical probabilities. Tables should be self-explanatory, and the data should not be duplicated in the text or illustrations. Tables must be submitted as part of the text file and not as illustrations.

o Figure Legends

Figure legends should be numbered (Arabic) and double-spaced in order of appearance beginning on a separate sheet. Identify (in alphabetic order) all abbreviations appearing in the illustrations at the end of each legend. Give the type of stain and magnification power for all photomicrographs. All abbreviations used on a figure and in its legend should be defined in the legend. Cite the source of previously published (print or electronic) material in the legend.

o Illustrations or Figures

Images or figures are submitted online as one or more separate files that may contain one or more images. Within each file containing images, use the figure number (eg, Figure 1A) as the image filename. The system accepts image files formatted in TIFF and EPS. Powerpoint (.ppt) files are also accepted, but you must use a separate Powerpoint image file for each Powerpoint figure.

Symbols, letters, numbers and contrasting fills must be distinct, easily distinguished and clearly legible when the illustration is reduced in size.

Black, white and widely crosshatched bars are preferable; do not use stippling, gray fill or thin lines.

Written permission from unmasked patients appearing in photographs must be obtained by the authors and must be surface mailed or faxed to the editorial office once the manuscript is submitted online.

Detailed Response to Reviewers

When submitting a revised manuscript, a Detailed Response to Reviewers must accompany the revision. This document must not contain any of the Author(s) details. The most common error is uploading this document on an organisation's letterhead, or the Author signing off with their name and contact details.

The easiest way to format this document is to either (a) respond underneath each point raised by the reviewer, or (b) create a 2-column table and copy each point raised by the reviewer into the first column, and respond against each point in the second column

Highlight any changes made on the revised manuscript to make it easy for the peer-reviewers to see where these have occurred. Also, remember to include page and line numbers to the manuscript as this makes the peer-review process easier.


Papers accepted for publication become the copyright of the Australian College of Nursing, and authors will be asked to sign a transfer of copyright form, on receipt of the accepted manuscript by Elsevier. This enables the Publisher to administer Copyright on behalf of the Authors and the Society, whilst allowing the continued use of the material by the Author for Scholarly communication.

Open Access

Please visit our Open Access page for more information.


All correspondence relating to the journal should be directed to: Editor-in-Chief, Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research at the above Email address.

Author contributions

For transparency, authors are requested to submit an author statement file outlining their individual contributions to the paper using the relevant CRediT roles: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing. Authorship statements should be formatted with the names of authors first and CRediT role(s) following. More details and an example.

Elsevier supports responsible sharing

Find out how you can share your research published in Elsevier journals.

Open access

Please visit our Open Access page for more information.


For questions about the editorial process (including the status of manuscripts under review) or for technical support on submissions, please visit our Support Center.

Peer review

This journal operates a double anonymized review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Any such submission is subject to all of the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor and their research groups. More information on types of peer review.

Double anonymized review

This journal uses double anonymized review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. More information is available on our website. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgements and any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author including an e-mail address.
Anonymized manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables and any acknowledgements) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations.

Revised Submissions

Authors are requested to submit the revision within 4 months. If not, the submission will be removed from the editorial system and needs to be submitted as a new submission.

Data references

This journal encourages you to cite underlying or relevant datasets in your manuscript by citing them in your text and including a data reference in your Reference List. Data references should include the following elements: author name(s), dataset title, data repository, version (where available), year, and global persistent identifier. Add [dataset] immediately before the reference so we can properly identify it as a data reference. The [dataset] identifier will not appear in your published article.

Preprint references

Where a preprint has subsequently become available as a peer-reviewed publication, the formal publication should be used as the reference. If there are preprints that are central to your work or that cover crucial developments in the topic, but are not yet formally published, these may be referenced. Preprints should be clearly marked as such, for example by including the word preprint, or the name of the preprint server, as part of the reference. The preprint DOI should also be provided.

Data visualization

Include interactive data visualizations in your publication and let your readers interact and engage more closely with your research. Follow the instructions here to find out about available data visualization options and how to include them with your article.

Research data

This journal encourages and enables you to share data that supports your research publication where appropriate, and enables you to interlink the data with your published articles. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. To facilitate reproducibility and data reuse, this journal also encourages you to share your software, code, models, algorithms, protocols, methods and other useful materials related to the project.

Below are a number of ways in which you can associate data with your article or make a statement about the availability of your data when submitting your manuscript. If you are sharing data in one of these ways, you are encouraged to cite the data in your manuscript and reference list. Please refer to the "References" section for more information about data citation. For more information on depositing, sharing and using research data and other relevant research materials, visit the research data page.

Data linking

If you have made your research data available in a data repository, you can link your article directly to the dataset. Elsevier collaborates with a number of repositories to link articles on ScienceDirect with relevant repositories, giving readers access to underlying data that gives them a better understanding of the research described.

There are different ways to link your datasets to your article. When available, you can directly link your dataset to your article by providing the relevant information in the submission system. For more information, visit the database linking page.

For supported data repositories a repository banner will automatically appear next to your published article on ScienceDirect.

In addition, you can link to relevant data or entities through identifiers within the text of your manuscript, using the following format: Database: xxxx (e.g., TAIR: AT1G01020; CCDC: 734053; PDB: 1XFN).

Data statement

To foster transparency, we encourage you to state the availability of your data in your submission. This may be a requirement of your funding body or institution. If your data is unavailable to access or unsuitable to post, you will have the opportunity to indicate why during the submission process, for example by stating that the research data is confidential. The statement will appear with your published article on ScienceDirect. For more information, visit the Data Statement page.


The corresponding author will, at no cost, receive a customized Share Link providing 50 days free access to the final published version of the article on ScienceDirect. The Share Link can be used for sharing the article via any communication channel, including email and social media. For an extra charge, paper offprints can be ordered via the offprint order form which is sent once the article is accepted for publication. Corresponding authors who have published their article gold open access do not receive a Share Link as their final published version of the article is available open access on ScienceDirect and can be shared through the article DOI link.