Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews

Research in Nursing and Health

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 71-73

  Bearinger, Linda H ^a,b,c  

^a Research in Nursing and Health   (United States)

^b Center for Adolescent Nursing   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PEER REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645995763     PISSN: 01606891     EISSN: 1098240X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nur.20119     Document Type: Editorial

References (9)

1. Alexander, G.R. (2005). A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Maternal & Child Health Journal, 9, 113-117.
2. Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., & Hall, J.E. (2003). A personal review: How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 47-52.
3. Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer review: Who's responsible? British Medical Journal, 328, 657-658.
4. Emden, C. (1996). Manuscript reviewing: Too long a concealed form of scholarship? Nursing Inquiry, 3, 195-199.
5. Foster, R.L. (2002) The fine art of critique. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 7, 47-48.
6. Goodman, S.N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S.W., & Fletcher, R.H. (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121, 11-21.
7. Kearney, M.H. & Freda, M.C. (2005). Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 444-452.
8. Seals, D.R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23, 52-58.
9. Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39, 90.