Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness

Nursing Outlook

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 188-199

  Henly, Susan J ^a   Bennett, Jill A ^a   Dougherty, Molly C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CHECKLIST; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING RESEARCH; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

CALIBRATION; CHECKLIST; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NURSING RESEARCH; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SCIENCE;

EID: 77954710935     PISSN: 00296554     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Baggs J.G., Broome M.E., Dougherty M.C., Freda M.C., Kearney M.H. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Nurs Sch 2008, 64:131-138.
2. Freda M.C., Kearney M.H., Baggs J.G., Broome M.E., Dougherty M.C. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Prof Nurs 2009, 25:101-108.
3. Kearney M.H., Baggs J.G., Broome M.E., Dougherty M.C., Margolis D.J. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. J Nurs Sch 2008, 40:395-400.
4. Council of Science Editors. Policy on Responsibilities and Rights of Editors of Peer-reviewed Journals. Available at: Accessed February 5, 2010. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services/draft_approved.cfm%23Authors.
5. Jöreskog K.G. Testing structural equation models. Testing structural equation models 1993, 294-316. Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA). K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.).
6. Tukey J.W. Analyzing data: sanctification or detective work?. Am Psych 1969, 24:83-91.
7. Abdellah F.G., Levine E. Better patient care through nursing research 1965, Macmillan, New York.
8. McClellan M.B., McGinnis M., Nabel E.G., Olsen L.M. Evidence-based medicine and the changing nature of health care 2008, National Academies Press, Washington (DC).
9. Altman D.G. Statistics in medical journals. Stat Med 1983, 1:59-71.
10. Altman D.G. The scandal of poor medical research [editorial]. BMJ 1994, 308:283-284.
11. Brogan D.R. A statistician's view on statistics, quantitative methods, and nursing. Statistics and quantitative methods in nursing 1989, 219-232. Saunders, Philadelphia. I. Abraham, J. Fitzpatrick, D. Nazdam (Eds.).
12. Polit D.F., Sherman R.T. Statistical power in nursing research. Nurs Res 1990, 39:365-369.
13. Cohn E.G., Jia H., Larson E. Evaluation of statistical approaches in quantitative nursing research. Clin Nurs Res 2009, 18:223-241.
14. Parent N., Hanley J.A. Assessing the quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs 2009, 19(2):25-39.
15. Polit D.F., Gillespie B.M. Use of the intention-to-treat principle in nursing clinical trials. Nurs Res 2009, 58:391-399.
16. Bailar J.C., Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals. Amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988, 108:266-273.
17. Haller K.B., Holditch-Davies D. Guidelines for statistical reporting. JOGNN 2000, 29:121.
18. Schriger D.L., Arora S., Altman D.G. The content of medical journal instructions for authors. Ann Emerg Med 2006, 48:743-749.
19. Clayton M.K. How should we achieve high-quality reporting of statistics in scientific journals? A commentary on " guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society." Adv Physiol Educ 2007, 31:302-304.
20. Curran-Everett D., Benos D.J. Last word on perspectives " guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society: the sequel" Adv Physiol Educ 2007, 31:306-307.
21. Herbison P. How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer [editorial]. Neurourol Urodyn 2007, 26:318-322.
22. Savik K. Reporting p-values. JWOCN 2006, 33:247-251.
23. Dougherty M.C. Peer review and the nursing literature [editorial]. Nurs Res 2009, 58:73.
24. Godlee F., Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences 2003, BMJ Books, London. 2nd ed.
25. Bailar J.C., Patterson K. Journal peer review: the need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med 1985, 312:2869-2871.
26. Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Peer Review Congress. 2009. Available at: Accessed February 5, 2010. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm.
27. Murray G.D. The task of a statistical referee. Br J Surg 1988, 75:664-667.
28. Sosa J.A., Mehta P., Thomas D.C., Berland G., Gross C., McNamara R.L., et al. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardization today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?. Ann Surg 2009, 250:152-158.
29. Gardner M.J., Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 1990, 263:1355-1357.
30. Harris A.H.S., Reeder R., Hyun J.K. Common statistical and design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers would like authors to know. J Psych Res 2009, 43:1231-1234.
31. Brown A.F. Research in nursing 1958, Saunders, Philadelphia.
32. Nursing science methods. A reader 1987, Regents, University of California, San Francisco (CA). S.R. Gortner (Ed.).
33. Brink P.J., Wood M.J. Advanced design in nursing research 1998, Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA). 2nd ed.
34. Aiken L.S., West S.G., Millsap R.E. Doctoral training in statistics, measurement, and methodology in psychology. Am Psychol 2008, 63:32-50.
35. Abraham I.L., Rice C.V. Avoiding the " cookbook approach": teaching nurses to be intelligent user's of statistics. Part II. Int Stat Ed Newsletter 1989, 9(2):2.
36. Aiken L.S., West S.G., Millsap R.E. Improving training in methodology enriches the science of psychology [letter]. Am Psychol 2009, 64:51-52.
37. Borsboom D. The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika 2006, 71:425-440.
38. Willett JB, Singer JD. Longitudinal Research. Present Status and Future Prospects. Available at: Accessed February 4, 2010. http://gseacademic.harvard.edu/alda/Chapter%20presentations.htm.
39. Day F.C., Schriger D.L., Todd C., Wears R.L. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002, 40:329-333.
40. Schriger D.L., Cooper R.J., Wears R.L., Waeckerle J.F. The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality. Ann Emerg Med 2002, 40:334-337.
41. Black N., van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Smith R., Evans S. What makes a good review and a good reviewer in a general medical journal?. JAMA 1998, 280:231-233.
42. Shattell M.M., Chinn P., Thomas S.P., Cowling W.R. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Sch 2010, 42:58-65.
43. Henly S.J., Dougherty M.C. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nurs Outlook 2009, 57:18-26.
44. EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. Available at: Accessed April 1, 2010. http://www.equator-network.org/home/.
45. Armstrong G.D. The intraclass correlation as a measure of the interrater reliability of subjective judgments. Nurs Res 1981, 314-315. 320A.
46. Broomell S.B., Budescu D.V. Why are experts correlated? Decomposing correlations between judges. Psychometrika 2009, 74:531-553.
47. Baigent C., Harrell F.E., Buyse M., Emberson J.R., Altman D.G. Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials 2008, 5:49-55.
48. Allen M.P., Jacobs S.K., Levy J.R. Mapping the literature of nursing: 1996-2000. J Med Libr Assoc 2006, 94:206-220.