Peer review has been considered to be an essential part of scholarly publishing since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago (Mulligan, 2004). Ideally, peer review is a “double blind” process whereby authors and reviewers are blinded to each other and the reviewers provide a well-prepared critical and ethical assessment of the quality of a manuscript that is submitted for publication. Hence, reviewers play an important role in guiding the substance and direction of a journal.
Ideally, peer review is a “double blind” process whereby authors and reviewers are blinded to each other and the reviewers provide a well-prepared critical and ethical assessment of the quality of a manuscript that is submitted for publication.
Due in large part to the pivotal role that is ascribed to the peer review (or the refereeing) of journal submissions, the utility of the process has come under increased scrutiny in recent years. Some of the criticisms aimed at peer review have included the lack of objective critical measures, the potential for conflict of interest or lack of confidentiality, and the risk of suppressing innovative thoughts and ideas (King, McGuire, Longman, & Carroll-Johnson, 1997). Judson (1994) also has pointed out that, with the appearance and growth of electronic publishing, the traditional system of review may not be in a position to keep up and ensure the publication of timely, ethical publications. In response to these concerns, Elsevier conducted a qualitative study of the perceptions of peer review held by authors, referees, and editors (Mulligan, 2004). Their overall result: the peer review process should be maintained, but it can be improved upon.
Here at the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, we operate using the double-blind model of peer review. Usually, if a manuscript meets the minimal criteria for review, then it is sent to at least three reviewers (and two alternates). Reviewers are selected based on their own areas of expertise and interest in order to find the best “match” with the content of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are provided with standard forms to guide their critiques, and they are asked to comment on the editorial quality, originality, validity, applicability, and writing style of the manuscript. There is no limit to the number of times a manuscript may be revised and resubmitted for review—persistence is the key!
There is no limit to the number of times a manuscript may be revised and resubmitted for review—persistence is the key!
For the most part, reviewers act in that capacity because of their commitment to the profession and their dedication to the maintenance of high standards in scientific and academic communication. I have been particularly impressed with the diligence, comprehensive intellect, and thoughtfulness that our reviewers have exhibited in accomplishing their tasks. In some ways, I see reviewers as stewards for knowledge development, and my impression is that they each take this responsibility seriously by offering clear and substantive reviews in order to provide meaningful feedback and to mentor the author(s) of a manuscript.
I would suspect that not many of us are actually taught how to review a manuscript, and it is often a task that is learned by doing. Utilizing a framework as outlined by Benos, Kirk, and Hall (2003), the following points should be kept in mind when one is asked to provide a manuscript review:
1.The assessment of the manuscript should be an honest and critical one that is based on scientific merit and objectively outlines strengths and weaknesses, provides suggestions for improvement, and ideally raises the author's level of enthusiasm for the work.
2.Absolute confidentiality should be maintained regarding the existence and content of a manuscript.
3.Reviewers should avoid or disclose, if necessary, any conflicts of interest and should decline to review a manuscript if the reviewer does not believe that she or he can provide an unbiased review.
4.Reviewers should accept only manuscripts that fall within their areas of expertise and should accomplish their reviews in a timely manner. Reviews also should be written in a collegial and constructive manner.
5.It is sometimes the unpleasant duty of a reviewer to report any suspected incidences of plagiarism or any ethical concerns about the manuscript.
My sense is that peer review is here to stay. To review for a journal is both a privilege and a responsibility to the profession at large. With the broad array of content and the increasing number of manuscript submissions that we are seeing here at Journal of Pediatric Health Care, we continually are in need of the services of experienced pediatric nurses and clinical scholars to help us ensure the quality of work that you see on these pages. For further general information about this process, you may wish to peruse the Elsevier Web site (http://www.elsevier.com), as well as the sites of the World Association of Medical Editors (http://www.wame.org) or the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/). And if you are interested in joining our team of reviewers, please let us hear from you.
FULL TEXT