Accept or Reject?
Article Outline
Key words: Nursing, peer review, biomedical publications
For the first time, nurse colleagues presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in 2009 (Broome, Dougherty, Kearney, Freda, & Baggs, 2009). This achievement illustrates the strides that nursing has made in refining the art and science of peer review. As an author, reviewer, and editor, I find the review process for publication a daunting undertaking. Yet I believe this process is the most important component in publishing quality manuscripts.
What is peer review? In the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (n.d.), peer review (a process also termed “refereeing”) is defined as “a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field.” Peer review has been going on since the early 18th century. It evolved as we know it today after the Second World War, partly in response to the large amount of scientific research generated during this period. Regarding the Journal of Pediatric Health Care (JPHC) review process, authors should anticipate that their manuscripts will be reviewed by the journal editors, in addition to two or three reviewers.
What are the types of peer review? I categorize peer review as a “preview,” double-blind, single-blind, self-selected, and open. A “preview” is an author-initiated process in which a topical expert, a colleague who represents the general readership of the potential publishing venue, and an individual able to evaluate grammar and style (or at the least use the spelling and grammar feature in Microsoft Office Word) are recruited to review your manuscript. Once your preview has been completed, you may then submit your paper to the publication you have selected for additional review.
Double-blind is the most common and preferred method of review in biomedical publications (Ware & Monkman, 2008), including nursing journals (Baggs, Broome, Dougherty, Freda, & Kearney, 2008). In double-blind review, the author and reviewer names are blinded during the review process. However, author anonymity is not ensured. In a study of nurse reviewers, 62% of respondents could not identify authors, yet 17.5% reported that they could identify authors 10% or less of the time (Baggs et al., 2008).
In single-blind review, the author's identity is disclosed to reviewers but the names of reviewers are not disclosed to the author. Concern with this type of review is the possible introduction of bias or other irresponsibility on the part of the reviewer. In self-selected review, the author may have input into selecting a reviewer. Again, this process may introduce bias; however, sometimes authors may best be able to identify a colleague with the needed clinical expertise or research interest to review their paper.
Both the reviewer and author are known to each other in unblinded or open review. Many nurse reviewers believe we should strive for this approach with all reviews, because many believe it is the most professional approach. However, many reviewers report that they are not able to be as honest and straightforward with open review as with other types of review, and they actually may reserve comments that would enhance the paper being reviewed.
Who are reviewers? Most reviewers are volunteers who are committed to promoting the quality of published scholarship in their field. Some publications offer an honorarium for reviews. Kearney, Baggs, Broome, Dougherty, and Freda (2008) reported on a survey of 1675 reviewers, with 90% of the respondents being nurses; the remaining persons surveyed were in the psychology, methods/statistics, and public health/epidemiology professions. A majority of the respondents were persons with doctorate degrees in the academic field (70%,) and 75% were involved in research. The mean age of reviewers was 52.57 years, and the average length of time as a reviewer was 11.2 years. Reviewers reported completing 7.37 reviews per year and taking an average of 5.74 hours to complete each review.
JPHC utilizes open or un-blinded review for Department columns and double-blind review for articles.
JPHC utilizes open or unblinded review for Department columns and double-blind review for articles. Papers are submitted and reviewed on the electronic Elsevier Editorial System (EES) for JPHC. Last year for JPHC, 245 reviews were tendered on EES, with JPHC reviewers submitting an average of 3.5 reviews per reviewer. Would you like to help and serve as a peer reviewer for papers submitted to JPHC? To be considered as a reviewer, send an e-mail message with your curriculum vitae to Martha Swartz, editor-in-chief, at Martha.swartz@yale.edu.
References
- Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M. C., Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 4, 131-138.
- Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M., Kearney, M., Freda, M., & Baggs, J. (2009, September). Ethical concerns of nursing journal reviewers: An international survey. Paper presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Abstract retrieved from http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts_2009.html
- . Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2008;40:395–400
- Peer review. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster's online dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer review
- Ware, M. & Monkman, M. (2008). Publishing Research Consortium. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions, and alternatives. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm
Sarah A. Martin, Advanced Practice Nurse, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL.
PII: S0891-5245(10)00024-6
doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2010.01.004
© 2010 National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
