Nurse editors' views on the peer review process

Research in Nursing and Health

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 444-452

  Kearney, Margaret H ^a,c   Freda, Margaret Comerford ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^b ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women's Health ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Nursing research; Peer review; Publishing

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EDITORIAL POLICIES; HUMANS; NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; UNITED STATES;

EID: 32944467685     PISSN: 01606891     EISSN: 1098240X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nur.20104     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Bachand, R.G., & Sawallis, P.P. (2003). Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines. The Serials Librarian, 45, 39-59.
2. Baggs, J.G. (1999). The value of the blind review process: Is blindness best? Research in Nursing and Health, 22, 93-94.
3. Callaham, M.L., Baxt, W.G., Waekerle, J.F., & Wears, R.L. (1998). Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA, 280, 229-231.
4. Callaham, M.L., Knopp, R.K., & Gallagher, E.J. (2002). Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. JAMA, 287, 2781-2783.
5. Chan, Z.C. (2003). Peer review gives voice to novice researchers: Response to "Peer review: Evidence-based or sacred cow?" Nursing Research, 52, 67-68.
6. Cho, M.K., Justice, A.C., Winker, M.A., Berlin, J.A., Waeckerle, J.F., Callaham, M.L., et al. (1998). Masking author identity in peer review: What factors influence masking success? JAMA, 280, 243-245.
7. Cicchetti, D.V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
8. Colliver, J.A. (2002). Commentary on Cicchetti's "Reliability of peer review." Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 14, 142-143.
9. Day, F.C., Schriger, D.L., Todd, C., & Wears, R.L. (2002). The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: A content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40, 329-333.
10. Dougherty, M.C. (2004). Open peer review: A first step. Nursing Research, 53, 213.
11. Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313-321.
12. Emden, C. (1996). Manuscript reviewing: Too long a concealed form of scholarship. Nursing Inquiry, 3, 195-199.
13. Engber, D. (2005). Quality control: The case against peer review. Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2116244, posted 4/5/05, retrieved April 21, 2005.
14. Freda, M.C., & Kearney, M. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37, 87-94.
15. Godlee, F. (2002). Making reviewers visible: Openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA, 287, 2762-2765.
16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2004). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication, updated October 2004. http://www.icmje.org/ peer, retrieved April 29, 2005.
17. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287, 2784-2786.
18. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA, 287, 2786-2790.
19. Judson, H.F. (1994). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA, 272, 92-94.
20. Justice, A.C., Cho, M.K., Winker, M.A., Berlin, J.A., Rennie, D., & the PEER investigators. (1998). Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280, 240-242.
21. Katz, D.S., Proto, A.V., & Olmsted, W.W. (2002). Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: Our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies. American Journal of Radiology, 179, 1415-1417.
22. Malone, R.E. (1999). Should peer review be an open process? Journal of Emergency Nursing, 25, 150-152.
23. Mason, D.J. (2003). Editorial freedom and integrity: You should be able to trust what you read in AJN. American Journal of Nursing, 103(4), 11.
24. McConnell, E.A. (2000). Nursing publications outside the United States. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 32, 87-92.
25. Morgan, D.L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112-121.
26. Rothwell, P.M., & Martyn, C.N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123, 1964-1969.
27. Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ Online First, doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE (published 2 March 2004).
28. Tilden, V. (2002). Peer review: Evidence-based or sacred cow? Nursing Research, 51, 275.
29. van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., & Black, N. (1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA, 280, 234-237.
30. Wade, D., & Tennant, A. (2004). An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical Rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 117-124.
31. Walker, K. (2004). 'Double b(l)ind': Peer review and the politics of scholarship. Nursing Philosophy, 5, 135-146.
32. Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 47-51.