| Learning Objective #1: Discuss the issues of concern to nurse editors in maintaining the common practice of blinded peer review versus moving to an open peer review process | |||
| Learning Objective #2: Describe nurse editors' views on the most common weaknesses in manuscript reviews and the characteristics of an excellent review |
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.