Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support: Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers

Journal of Professional Nursing

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 101-108

  Freda, Margaret Comerford ^a   Kearney, Margaret H ^b   Baggs, Judith Gedney ^c   Broome, Marion E ^d   Dougherty, Molly ^e  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF NURSING   (United States)

^c OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Nursing; Peer review; Publication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; NURSING; PEER REVIEW;

NURSING; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 62749181773     PISSN: 87557223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Baxt W.G., Waeckerle J.F., Berlin J.A., and Callaham M.L. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32 3 pt 1 (1998) 310-317
2. Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Smith R., and Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (1998) 231-233
3. Callaham M.L., Knopp R.K., and Gallagher E.J. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: Two randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (2002) 2781-2783
4. Callaham M.L., and Schriger D.L. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine 40 (2002) 323-328
5. Callaham M.L., and Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PloS Med 4 (2007) E40 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040
6. Callaham M.L., Wears R.L., and Waeckerle J.F. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32 3 Pt 1 (1998) 318-322
7. Freda M.C., and Kearney M.H. An international survey of nurse editors roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37 (2005) 1-8
8. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney F., Folse S., and Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 18 (2007) MR000016
9. Kearney M.H., and Freda M.C. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health 28 (2005) 444-452
10. Kearney M.H., Baggs J., Broome M., Dougherty M., and Freda M.C. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 40 (2008) 391-397
11. Kliewer M.A., Freed K.S., DeLong D.M., Pickhardt P.J., and Provenzale J.M. Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology 184 (2005) 1731-1735
12. Landkroon A.P., Euser A.M., Veeken H., Hart W., and Overbeke A.J. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108 (2006) 979-985
13. Rennie D., and Flanagin A. Congress on biomedical peer review: History, ethics, and plans for the future. Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (1998) 213
14. Rothwell P.M., and Martyn C.N. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain 123 pt 9 (2000) 1964-1969
15. Schroter S., Black N., Evans S., Carpenter J., Godlee F., and Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 328 (2004) 673
16. Snell L., and Spencer J. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education 39 (2005) 90-97
17. Tite L., and Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61 (2007) 9-12