Revised as of January 14, 2009
Value of Peer Review
Peer review is essential to the selection for publication of manuscripts that best
address the editorial purpose of Nursing Research, which follows:
The editorial purposes of Nursing Research are to: report research, both
completed and that which is in progress, that contributes to the knowledge base
of the discipline of nursing and that provides a better understanding of human
responses to illness and the promotion of health; serve an educational function
through presenting reports and critiques of methodology and research design; and
serve as a medium for the stimulation of ideas and exchange of information about
nursing research and practice. Selection of articles for publication is based on
their contribution to knowledge, value of method, significance of findings, and
relevance to contemporary nursing.
Thorough and fair narrative reviews help authors improve their work and assist
the editor in the editorial process.
Reviews May be Posted
Selected manuscripts and peer reviews are posted on the Nursing Research Editor's
Website at http://www.nursing-research-editor.com/authors/open.php to provide
readers, authors, and reviewers with specific information about the review process.
Manuscripts and reviews are selected for educational purposes to support continuous
improvement in the editorial process. Any review submitted to Nursing Research may
be posted anonymously. Goals of open manuscript review are to (a) help authors
improve their writing and their response to reviews and (b) provide reviewers
with examples of reviews submitted by others.
Nursing Research is committed to optimizing the peer review process for authors,
reviewers, and editorial staff. In order to improve the peer review process,
we continually monitor efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of products produced
during peer review.
Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest can include (a) personal conflict (a good or bad relationship
with the author or institution, (b) financial conflict (e.g., stock in a drug
company or competing technology), or (c) intellectual conflict (a strong interest
in seeing the research published or not published). If you have a conflict of
interest related to an assigned manuscript, we ask that you decline to review
the manuscript; we will reassign it.
Confidentiality
All material in the manuscript is confidential. Please to not share the manuscript
with anyone else.
Protection of Human and Animal Research Participants
Authors must have taken steps to protect human and animal research participants.
Approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for humans or an institutional
animal care and use committee in the United States or a parallel process in other
countries is sufficient. Descriptions of cases should not be so specific that an
individual is identifiable.
Editorial Manager
The review process is carried out on Editorial Manager, an on-line manuscript
management system. Authors submit their papers to the Editorial Manager system.
Reviewers access assigned manuscripts and submit their reviews to Editorial Manager,
where the Editor accesses all materials. The Editorial Assistant oversees operation
of Editorial Manager.
Comments to Editor
Editorial Manager permits the editor to view "comments to editor" and "comments
to author." Please reserve the comments-to-editor section for comments that you
judge not suitable for the author. Examples of information to include in comments
to editor include (a) concerns about misconduct regarding the research or the
manuscript, (b) comments that may be useful to the editor but would disclose
the reviewer's identity, (c) information about portions of the manuscript that
the reviewer is not able to assess, (d) or concerns about duplicate publication.
Review Overview
Reviews should be organized around major sections of the manuscript and contain
comments on each major section. Too brief a report is not helpful because it is
not clear whether the reviewer has read and reflected on the strengths and
weaknesses of the manuscript. A narrative of approximately two single-spaced
pages is usually sufficient to provide substantive detail to guide the author
and inform the editor. Both authors and editor appreciate detailed reviews,
although when manuscripts are either uniformly excellent or very poor, a summary
of strengths and weakness for major sections may be sufficient.
Use complete sentences in order to convey meaning most effectively because the
intent of questions and colloquial expressions may not be clear to authors.
Frequently, authors from other countries are not familiar with idiomatic or
colloquial English and your comments may conflict with those of other reviewers.
Simple sentences convey meaning clearly.
Excellent reviews require several hours to complete. Reviewers report that they
first read the manuscript and make marginal notes; then they write the review.
If needed, they check reference material. Later, they review the manuscript and
the review and make revisions before submission. The Editor and Editorial
Assistant are available to provide support and assistance as needed to reviewers,
most commonly by e-mail.
Review Organization and Content
Your review on Editorial Manager contains 5 parts (a) reviewer recommendation,
(b) overall reviewer manuscript rating, (c) comments to editor, (d) comments to author,
and (e) manuscript rating.
Complete item c first. Answer the questions and include any confidential
information to the editor. (See above for restrictions on comments to the
Editor.)
Then, write the narrative review (item d). Items a, b and e should be completed
last, after you have read the manuscript and written your comments to author.
Most of the reviewer's efforts should be expended on item d. Authors receive
your comments to author; please do not place information that reveals your identity
in them. Because of print space restrictions we are not able to publish many
meritorious manuscripts. Therefore, it is best to reserve your recommendation
about publication to item a (Reviewer Recommendation) at the top of the form,
which only the editor views.
The narrative review on research reports should include an evaluation of the
adequacy of the following:
Problems Statement. Comment on the significance of the problem in nursing and
relevance to developing the body of knowledge. The problem statement should appear
before the design and methods in the manuscript. If hypotheses are appropriate
to the study comment on their linkage to the problem statement and (if appropriate)
theoretical framework. Comment on the adequacy of the identification and definition
of variables and the relationships between them.
Background Literature. Comment on the development of the background literature as
a context for the need for the study and as a clear link to a gap in knowledge.
Comment on the thoroughness of the literature presented and on the quality of
the evidence used to support the problem under study. The literature review should
connect the problem to the theoretical framework or knowledge gap addressed.
Theoretical framework. Comment on whether a theoretical framework is articulated
and on the fit of the theory to the research problem. Comment on the adequacy of
definitions of concepts.
Research design and method. Address the strengths and weaknesses of the research
design in light of the problem statement. Comment on design features including
setting, population, sample, sampling technique, instrumentation/measures and
data collection procedures. Comment on the adequacy of measurement of variables
and on internal and external validity.
Data analysis. Comment on the adequacy of descriptive statistics and the use of
figures and tables. Comment on the completeness of the analysis as related to the
problem statement. If inferential statistics are used, comment on the appropriateness
of the tests and the adequacy of descriptions of the analysis. If qualitative
analysis was used, comment on the adequacy of the linkage between the problem
statement and the data analysis approach and on the adequacy of the description
of the steps taken in the analysis.
Results. Comments on completeness of the results as related to the problem statement
and hypotheses and the appropriateness of the analysis presented.
Discussion. Comment on the relevance of the discussion to the results and
background literature. In journals such as Nursing Research that use the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001), Discussion
is reserved for evaluation and interpretation of the results. The author should
address the similarities and differences between results presented and the literature,
which should be used to clarify and confirm his/her conclusions. The author may
refer to the literature presented in the Background but new literature citations
should not be introduced in the Discussion. Comment on the description of study limitations.
Organization and style of presentation. Comment on the organization and writing
style of the manuscript including the content of the manuscript as related to
inclusion of all information needed to understand the research and the exclusion
of unnecessary information.
Summary. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses and indicate the overall significance
of the research. Place findings in the context of relevant literature.
Brief Report and Methods Reviews
The narrative review of a manuscript submitted for Brief Report or Methodology
should reflect a review of the major components of the report. It may be helpful
to adapt the outline for review of primary reports (above).
Randomized clinical trial (RCT) Design
If the manuscript is based on RCT design, it is necessary to assess the manuscript
for the adequacy of steps taken to control bias. We encourage reviewers to visit
http://www.consort-statement.org
and to use the CONSORT checklist with specific
attention to items that if inadequately reported are associated with biased estimates
of treatment effect as well as information essential to evaluate the reliability
and relevance of the results. The CONSORT Checklist can be accessed in Word at
http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1030
and the Flow diagram can be accessed in Word at
http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1077
The CONSORT Website is updated frequently and to assure that you are using current
information it is important that you visit the Web site.
Summary
Reviewers external to the editorial office are essential to the selection of high
quality reports that advance knowledge in nursing. Authors and editors benefit
from the unbiased and candid appraisal of manuscripts and benefit especially
from narrative comments on each major section of the manuscript. At Nursing Research
we publish anonymously reviews that have an educational value on the Nursing Research
Editor's Website. The review process is carried out on Editorial Manager and
the Editor and Editorial Assistant are available to support the reviewer when needed.
Reviews of RCT design reports as well as reviews of Brief Reports and Methods differ
from the recommended content of narrative reviews.
References
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). (2001).
Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals
guidelines for good practice. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Thank you for your continuing support of Nursing Research. Your service
is an invaluable part of the Nursing Research review process.
|
