Safeguarding the Quality of Evidence in Print: Nurse Editors' Views on the Peer Review Process

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/153604
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Safeguarding the Quality of Evidence in Print: Nurse Editors' Views on the Peer Review Process
Abstract:
Safeguarding the Quality of Evidence in Print: Nurse Editors' Views on the Peer Review Process
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2005
Author:Kearney, Margaret H., PhD, RN, FAAN
P.I. Institution Name:University of Rochester
Title:Professor
Co-Authors:Margaret Freda, EdD, RN, FAAN
Background: The peer review process is a hallowed safeguard of quality of the published evidence for nursing practice, but the tradition of blinding author and reviewer has been challenged in other disciplines. We conducted an email survey of nurse editors to determine their views on blinded peer review, how they prepared reviewers for the role, and the common strengths and weaknesses of the reviews they received. Methods: After IRB approval, a 108-question survey was distributed by email and returned by 88 editors of 90 journals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results: Most editors used written guidelines to instruct new reviewers. Some relied on a review checklist or author guidelines. Virtually all used blinded peer review, although over 20% saw possible benefits of unblinding. Some noted that authors were likely to be recognized anyway, and a few sought greater transparency in the publishing process to encourage submissions and enable constructive dialogue. More editors were worried that if reviews were open, authors would challenge the judgments of reviewers they viewed as unqualified, or reviewers would discount novice authors or fear critiquing senior scientists. Lack of specific critique was a common weakness of reviews. Some editors wanted less copy-editing and more focus on content, while others expected proofreading and checking of references. Greater agreement was seen on characteristics of excellent reviews. Clear, constructive feedback to the author, with directions as to how to strengthen the paper, was valued. Editors sought a thorough, fair critique that offered encouragement as well as explicit directions for improvement. Discussion: The expertise of nurse editors has been pivotal in development of the knowledge base for nursing. Professional dialogue on scholarly review procedures and wider education of nurses on the skills of reviewing may further improve the quality of evidence for practice.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleSafeguarding the Quality of Evidence in Print: Nurse Editors' Views on the Peer Review Processen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/153604-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Safeguarding the Quality of Evidence in Print: Nurse Editors' Views on the Peer Review Process</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2005</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Kearney, Margaret H., PhD, RN, FAAN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Rochester</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">margaret_kearney@urmc.rochester.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Margaret Freda, EdD, RN, FAAN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Background: The peer review process is a hallowed safeguard of quality of the published evidence for nursing practice, but the tradition of blinding author and reviewer has been challenged in other disciplines. We conducted an email survey of nurse editors to determine their views on blinded peer review, how they prepared reviewers for the role, and the common strengths and weaknesses of the reviews they received. Methods: After IRB approval, a 108-question survey was distributed by email and returned by 88 editors of 90 journals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results: Most editors used written guidelines to instruct new reviewers. Some relied on a review checklist or author guidelines. Virtually all used blinded peer review, although over 20% saw possible benefits of unblinding. Some noted that authors were likely to be recognized anyway, and a few sought greater transparency in the publishing process to encourage submissions and enable constructive dialogue. More editors were worried that if reviews were open, authors would challenge the judgments of reviewers they viewed as unqualified, or reviewers would discount novice authors or fear critiquing senior scientists. Lack of specific critique was a common weakness of reviews. Some editors wanted less copy-editing and more focus on content, while others expected proofreading and checking of references. Greater agreement was seen on characteristics of excellent reviews. Clear, constructive feedback to the author, with directions as to how to strengthen the paper, was valued. Editors sought a thorough, fair critique that offered encouragement as well as explicit directions for improvement. Discussion: The expertise of nurse editors has been pivotal in development of the knowledge base for nursing. Professional dialogue on scholarly review procedures and wider education of nurses on the skills of reviewing may further improve the quality of evidence for practice.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T12:23:11Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T12:23:11Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.