Nurse authors often voice to editors and colleagues that they struggle with manuscript revision based on peer reviewer feedback. The quality of peer review can vary greatly and it is, by nature, subjective (Garg & Gottlieb, 2018; Pierson, 2015), leading to frustration from authors as they attempt revisions to their work. For example, comments from reviewers may add confusion or offer conflicting suggestions for revision and authors are unsure how to respond (Pierson, 2015; Zehnbauer et al., 2018). A recent study by Huisman and Smits (2017) that considered the author perspective of the peer review process analyzed author-submitted data from 3500 review experiences. Concerns were inefficiency of the editorial process and lengthy duration to receive review comments. Although authors were pleased with shorter turnaround, Huisman and Smits (2017) noted that longer review processes actually led to higher ratings from authors. Although more authors were satisfied than not, perceptions of poor quality noted concerns such as superficial comments, contradiction, unreadable comments, unreasonable requests for modifications, and questions as to the authenticity of a review (i.e., whether or not a reviewer even read or understood the manuscript).
Some reviewers offer comments that may not seem harsh to seasoned writers familiar with the revision process, but are perceived as overly critical and not constructive in nature, especially by inexperienced authors. These authors often have a high level of clinical expertise, but lack confidence in navigating the publishing process (Amerson, 2018). In academia, nursing faculty on the tenure-track are expected to pursue publication to satisfy requirements for tenure and/or promotion. Increasingly, graduate nursing students are expected to publish (Amerson, 2018; Cowell & Pierson, 2016; Thomas et al., 2014). Many junior (pre-tenure) nursing faculty and graduate students have little to no experience with formal publication of their scholarly work in a journal. These authors are unprepared to address what may be multiple revisions. Tenured faculty with experience may lack the time or feel unprepared to mentor novice authors. This is a significant barrier (Cowell & Pierson, 2016) to publication for many; authors become overwhelmed by level and volume of revisions required (Saunders-Russell & DuBose, 2018) and they may fail to persevere to the endpoint of the process, a successful publication.
This presentation will provide basic information about the review process and how to address reviewer comments in the revision process. Content will include a synthesis of examples and suggestions drawn from both healthcare literature (Garg & Gottleib, 2018; Miller et al., 2017; Pierson, 2015; Wolf, 2016) and professional experiences. A nursing journal editor with more than 10 years of experience will review common scenarios that lead to confusion and frustration for authors in the manuscript revision process and discuss specific strategies to avoid or resolve these potential barriers. A nurse researcher and educator with more than 60 refereed publications will compare and contrast select positive and negative experiences based on revision of actual manuscripts. Examples of scenarios for discussion are how to handle negative or harsh reviews, conflicting suggestions, and when to query the editor.