Document Detail


Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: an international survey.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21097972     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Editors of scientific literature rely heavily on peer reviewers to evaluate the integrity of research conduct and validity of findings in manuscript submissions. The purpose of this study was to describe the ethical concerns of reviewers of nursing journals. This descriptive cross-sectional study was an anonymous online survey. The findings reported here were part of a larger investigation of experiences of reviewers. Fifty-two editors of nursing journals (six outside the USA) agreed to invite their review panels to participate. A 69-item forced-choice and open-ended survey developed by the authors based on the literature was pilot tested with 18 reviewers before being entered into SurveyMonkey(TM). A total of 1675 reviewers responded with useable surveys. Six questions elicited responses about ethical issues, such as conflict of interest, protection of human research participants, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of data and 'other'. The reviewers indicated whether they had experienced such a concern and notified the editor, and how satisfied they were with the outcome. They provided specific examples. Approximately 20% of the reviewers had experienced various ethical dilemmas. Although the majority reported their concerns to the editor, not all did so, and not all were satisfied with the outcomes. The most commonly reported concern perceived was inadequate protection of human participants. The least common was plagiarism, but this was most often reported to the editor and least often led to a satisfactory outcome. Qualitative responses at the end of the survey indicate this lack of satisfaction was most commonly related to feedback provided on resolution by the editor. The findings from this study suggest several areas that editors should note, including follow up with reviewers when they identify ethical concerns about a manuscript.
Authors:
Marion Broome; Molly C Dougherty; Margaret C Freda; Margaret H Kearney; Judith G Baggs
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Nursing ethics     Volume:  17     ISSN:  1477-0989     ISO Abbreviation:  Nurs Ethics     Publication Date:  2010 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-11-24     Completed Date:  2011-03-21     Revised Date:  2012-01-09    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9433357     Medline TA:  Nurs Ethics     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  741-8     Citation Subset:  N    
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. mbroome@iupui.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Animal Rights
Attitude of Health Personnel*
Communication
Conflict of Interest
Cross-Sectional Studies
Deception
Duplicate Publication as Topic
Editorial Policies
Female
Human Experimentation / ethics
Humans
Interprofessional Relations / ethics
Male
Nursing Methodology Research
Nursing Research / ethics*
Patient Rights / ethics
Peer Review, Research / ethics*
Periodicals as Topic / ethics*
Plagiarism
Qualitative Research
Questionnaires
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
Nurs Ethics. 2011 Nov;18(6):862   [PMID:  22128100 ]

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


Previous Document:  Moral distress experienced by psychiatric nurses in Japan.
Next Document:  The ethical community consultation model as preparation for nursing research: A case study.