Henderson Repository Peer-reviewer Overview

Independent Submissions Community - Only

Repository Overview

  • The Henderson Repository is a subject-based repository for nurse authors and their co-authors to share their research and evidence-based practice materials in an open and freely available venue.
  • To assure quality control and increase rigor, the Henderson Repository has chosen to institute a single-blind peer-review process for the items submitted to the collections under the Independent Submissions community.
  • Any person with a degree (or currently pursuing a degree) from a school of nursing that offers programs accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) and/or the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), or their equivalent for those submitting authors outside of the U.S. and/or the jurisdiction of the two aforementioned accreditation agencies, is eligible to submit an item to the Henderson Repository.
  • Membership in the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International (STTI) is not a requirement for submission.
  • Abstract-only submissions are not acceptable. 
  • The Henderson Repository accepts many types of items, including but not limited to: posters, presentation slides, conference papers, dissertations, theses, DNP capstone projects, reports, guidelines, patient education materials, faculty-created learning objects, and data sets.
  • The repository staff does not correct or copyedit submissions. All submissions must be submitted in final format and be ready for posting.

Definitions

  • Reviewer Profile. This area may be reached by logging into the repository and selecting the "My Profile" option shown in the main menu bar at the top of the page. Submissions waiting/undergoing review are stored in this area. The reviewer profile is divided into 2 sections: "Tasks in the Pool" and "Owned Tasks."
  • Tasks. Within the Henderson Repository's software system, a submitted item is referred to as a "task."
  • Tasks in the Pool. Items waiting to be reviewed are sent to a Tasks pool. Since a collection may have a number of reviewers working on it, all reviewers will see the items in the pool.
  • Owned Tasks. Once an item has been taken by a reviewer it is removed from the pool and becomes available only to the person who took the task. They can complete the task, pause it and return to it later, or return the task to the pool so that others may complete the review.

Important Notes

  • Reviewers are not assigned submissions to review.
  • When an item is submitted (i.e., a task) to a collection, all reviewers assigned to that collection will receive an email alerting them that an item needs review. The first reviewer to take the task, removes it from general visibility and becomes responsible for the review. There are no other reminders.
  • If a reviewer rejects an item, and that item is edited by the author and re-submitted, the task will again be available to everyone in that collection's reviewer pool.
  • Items submitted to the Henderson Repository will be evaluated by a single reviewer. This single reviewer’s decision will determine if an item is rejected and declined, rejected with revision requests, and/or accepted for posting in the repository. There is no hierarchical editorial process.
  • Items accepted by reviewers are then cataloged and processed prior to posting in the repository.
  • If a reviewer finds that he/she is routinely rejecting the work of a particular author, please make a note of the author and the reason(s) for rejection, and send the information in an email to the repository manager at  repository@stti.org.

Reviewer Expectations

Timeframe

Reviewers are asked to complete a review within three weeks from the date of submission. Choices for review decisions include: (1) accept, (2) reject for revisions and resubmit, or (3) reject and decline.

If you are unable to complete a review, please place the task back in the reviewer pool so that another reviewer may complete it. Please also alert your fellow collection reviewers (if applicable) that you have placed an item back in the task pool that needs immediate attention.

Please communicate freely with fellow reviewers in your collection's reviewer pool as to time constraints and workloads.

If you feel that the number of submissions to your collection is placing undue demands on your time, please make the Henderson Repository manager aware of the situation (repository@stti.org).

Confidentiality

The Henderson Repository employs a "single-blind" review process. The author's name is disclosed to the reviewers, but the reviewers are unknown to the author. It is expected that reviewers keep all information pertaining to the submission confidential, both during the review and afterward.

If you wish to involve a specially qualified colleague in the review, please inform the Henderson Repository office (repository@stti.org).

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest to the Henderson Repository office (repository@stti.org). Simply knowing one of the authors or having casual knowledge of the submitted material does not necessarily mean a conflict of interest exists. A conflict arises when a reviewer feels that his or her opinion is biased.

Examples where a conflict of interest exists include:

  • Any situation where the reviewer could gain personally or financially as a result of reviewing the submission
  • A close collaboration or competition with one of the authors
  • Review of the submission would benefit a particular product, program, or resource related to the reviewer
  • Any situation that could limit an objective review of any submission

Evaluation Requirement

For detailed review instructions, please see the Reviewer Instructions and Review Checklist available on the Policies and Guidelines page.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a submission using the following criteria:

  • Suitability for the collection to which it was submitted
  • Readability; concise, logical ordering of ideas
  • Sound rationale for ideas, including background
  • Adequate documentation of ideas; citation of relevant literature
  • Appropriateness of inquiry methods, including design, sample, instruments, and procedures, if research
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Accuracy of content; soundness of conclusions
  • Is complete and suitable for public dissemination at the time of submission

Reviewers are not expected to:

  • Correct or copyedit submissions.
  • Assess an item's significance as a useful contribution to the field. It is up to the repository's end-users to make the call of importance.