Document Detail

Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  19306833     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
TOPIC: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. METHODS: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. RESULTS: Results showed that 65% wanted formal training, although only about 30% received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, "I still question my reviews" and "It took a few years." In this sample, 31% reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87% wanted feedback. Most (80%) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45% actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.
Margaret Comerford Freda; Margaret H Kearney; Judith Gedney Baggs; Marion E Broome; Molly Dougherty
Related Documents :
16683923 - An examination of sources of peer-review bias.
1995973 - Medicare peer review organization preprocedure review criteria. an analysis of criteria...
24358883 - Paradoxical immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome due to toxoplasmic encephalitis...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of professional nursing : official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing     Volume:  25     ISSN:  1532-8481     ISO Abbreviation:  J Prof Nurs     Publication Date:    2009 Mar-Apr
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2009-03-24     Completed Date:  2009-06-26     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8511298     Medline TA:  J Prof Nurs     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  101-8     Citation Subset:  IM; N    
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Peer Review, Health Care*

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

Previous Document:  Pros and woes of interdisciplinary collaboration with a national clinical trial.
Next Document:  An investigation of nursing competence and the competency outcomes performance assessment curricular...