Document Detail

Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20487187     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
PURPOSE: This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. Specifically, the study examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts. METHODS: Corresponding authors who had submitted manuscripts to the study journals in 2005-2007 were invited via email to complete an online survey about the quality of the peer review process; 320 authors responded. In addition, one third of the reviews of manuscripts submitted in 2005-2007 (a total of 528) were selected for rating by journal editors on level of detail, bias, and constructive tone; usefulness to authors in revising/developing the manuscript; and usefulness to the editor in making a decision. RESULTS: A majority (73.8%) of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and 75.6% agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale for editors' decisions. New authors generally reported less satisfaction with reviews than more experienced authors. Ratings of reviews by the editors revealed some problem areas, including inconsistency, insufficient feedback to the author, reviewer bias, and disrespectful tone. CONCLUSIONS: Given the inexperience of many nurse authors, it is incumbent upon editors and reviewers to provide guidance and support. Manuscript reviews could be improved by increasing the consistency of numeric ratings, narrative comments, and recommendations regarding disposition of the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the results of this study reaffirm the worth of the peer review approach. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Publication of research and other forms of scholarly work is critical to the development of nursing knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. Authors with a variety of backgrounds, knowledge, and skills have important work to share that can serve healthcare providers and their clients. Thus, ensuring the quality of the peer review process is essential.
Mona M Shattell; Peggy Chinn; Sandra P Thomas; W Richard Cowling
Related Documents :
14735767 - Mastering verb tenses in literature reviews.
3338967 - Time, reconstruction and psychic reality.
16289247 - The role of wetlands in the chromophoric dissolved organic matter release and its relat...
19496487 - Fiber types, asbestos potency, and environmental causation: a peer review of published ...
23114877 - Clinicopathological review of pallidonigroluysian atrophy.
7426597 - Static perimetry in the study of amblyopic scotomata.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing / Sigma Theta Tau     Volume:  42     ISSN:  1547-5069     ISO Abbreviation:  J Nurs Scholarsh     Publication Date:  2010 Mar 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-05-21     Completed Date:  2010-08-26     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  100911591     Medline TA:  J Nurs Scholarsh     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  58-65     Citation Subset:  IM; N    
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, School of Nursing, and Editor of Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA. mona
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Data Collection
Nursing Research*
Peer Review, Research*
Periodicals as Topic*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Innovative collaborations: a case study for academic owned nursing practice.
Next Document:  Development and validation of a mass casualty conceptual model.