Conceptual Debates and Empirical Evidence About the Peer Review Process for Scholarly Journals

Journal of Professional Nursing

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 168-173

  Thomas, Sandra P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer review; Scholarly journals

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SOCIOLOGY; STANDARD;

HUMANS; NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 79956046515     PISSN: 87557223     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.015     Document Type: Review

References (44)

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. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2008, 64:131-138.
2. Bedeian A.G. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry 2003, 12:331-338.
3. Bedeian A.G. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2004, 3:198-216.
4. Biagioli M. Peer review. The Oxford companion to the history of modern science 2003, Oxford University Press, Retrieved February 5, 2008, from. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t124.e0558&srn=1&ssid=7018, J.L. Heilbron (Ed.).
5. Broome, M., Dougherty, M., Baggs, J., Kearney, M.H., & Freda, M.C. (2009). Ethical concerns of nursing journal reviewers: An international survey. Presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
6. Campanario J.M. Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication 1995, 16:304-325.
7. Dougherty, M., Freda, M.C., Kearney, M.H., Baggs, J.G., & Broome, M. (2009). Nursing journal peer reviewers' use of impact factor and priorities in manuscript reviews. Presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
8. Ellison G. The slowdown in the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy 2002, 110:947-993.
9. Epstein S. What can be done to improve the journal review process. American Psychologist 1995, 50:883-885.
10. Eysenck H.K. Editorial. Personality and Individual Differences 1980, 1:1-2.
11. Freda M.C., Kearney M.H. Ethical issues faced by nursing editors. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2005, 27:487-499.
12. Freda M.C., Kearney M.H. An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2005, 37:87-94.
13. Freda M.C., Kearney M.H., Baggs J., Broome M., Dougherty M. Peer reviewer training and editor support: Results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing 2009, 25:101-108.
14. Frey B.S. Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one's own ideas and academic success. Public Choice 2003, 116:205-223.
15. Godlee F., Gale C.R., Martyn C.N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding peer reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized control trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998, 280:237-240.
16. Grimm D. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published. Science 2005, 309:1974.
17. Gross A.M., Fonteyn M.E. Turn your presentation into a published manuscript. American Journal of Nursing 2008, 108:85-87.
18. Henly S.J., Dougherty M.C. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nursing Outlook 2009, 57:18-26.
19. Horrobin D.F. Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science. Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control 1982, 33-34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. S. Harnad (Ed.).
20. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No. MR 00016.
21. Jefferson T., Wager E., Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287:2786-2790.
22. Kearney M.H., Baggs J.G., Broome M.E., Dougherty M.C., Freda M.C. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2008, 40:395-400.
23. Kearney M.H., Freda M.C. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing and Health 2005, 28:442-452.
24. Kronick D.A. Peer-review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990, 263:1321-1322.
25. Kumashiro K.K. Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal article publication. Harvard Educational Review 2005, 75:257-266.
26. Miner J.B. Commentary on Arthur Bedeian's "The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors.". Journal of Management Inquiry 2003, 12:339-343.
27. Myers G. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge 1990, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
28. Peters D.P., Ceci S.J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982, 5:187-255.
29. Plous S. The psychology of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: An overview. Understanding prejudice and discrimination 2003, 3-48. McGraw-Hill, New York. S. Plous (Ed.).
30. Regehr G., Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 2006, 40:832-839.
31. Rothwell P.M., Martyn C.N. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?. Brain 2000, 123(pt 9):1964-1969.
32. Roth W.M. Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education 2002, 32:215-240.
33. Sellke F.W. The peer-review process in medical publishing: A reviewer's perspective. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2003, 126:1683-1685.
34. Shattell, M., Chinn, P., Thomas, S.P., & Cowling, W., (2009, September). Quality of peer reviews in 3 nursing journals from the perspective of authors and editors. Presented at the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
35. Snell L., Spencer J. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education 2005, 39:90-97.
36. Spector P.E. When reviewers become authors: A comment on the journal review process. Research Methods Forum Retrieved March 2, 2003, from. http://www.aom.Pace.edu/rmd/1998_forum_reviewers_become_authors.html.
37. Starbuck W.H. Turning lemons into lemonade: Where is the value in peer reviews?. Journal of Management Inquiry 2003, 12:344-351.
38. Van Lange P.A.M. Why authors believe that reviewers stress limiting aspects of manuscripts: The SLAM effect in peer review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2550-2566.
39. Wager E., Godlee F., Jefferson T. How to survive peer review 2002, BMJ Publishing Group, London.
40. Ware M. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, London Retrieved December 1, 2008, from. http://www.publishingresearch.net.
41. Weber E.J., Katz P.P., Waeckerle J., Callaham M.L. Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287:2790-2793.
42. Weller A.C. Editorial peer review: A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1996, 84:359-366.
43. Weller A.C. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses 2001, Information Today (ASIS&T Monograph Series), Medford, NJ.
44. Yalow R.S. Competency testing for reviewers and editors. Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific control 1982, 60-61. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. S. Harnad (Ed.).