Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals - time for a rethink?

Nursing Inquiry

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 92-100

  Jasper, Melanie ^a   Vaismoradi, Mojtaba ^a   Bondas, Terese ^b   Turunen, Hannele ^c  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NORD UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Peer review; Reliability; Reviewing process; Validity

Indexed keywords

NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; REPRODUCIBILITY;

NURSING RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84900544974     PISSN: 13207881     EISSN: 14401800     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/nin.12030     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baggs JG. 2010. Through the looking glass: Publishing in a journal in another language or another country. Research in Nursing & Health 33: 85-6.
2. Baggs JG, ME Broome, MC Dougherty, MC Freda and MH Kearney 2008. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 64: 131-8.
3. Bornmann L and HD Daniel 2008. Reliability, fairness, and predictive validity of the peer review process for the selection of research fellowship recipients of the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds. In Institutional change: The University as a research object - Studies in honor of Ulrich Teichler. ed. BM Kehm, 365-76. Frankfurt: Frankfurt am Main Campus.
4. Bosetti F and CD Toscano 2008. Is it time to standardise ethics guiding the peer review process? Lipids 43: 107-8.
5. Bourne PE and A Korngreen 2006. Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology 2: 973-4.
6. Broome ME. 2010. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review. Nursing Outlook 58: 160-70.
7. Callaham ML and J Tercier 2007. The relationship of previous training and experience of peer reviews to subsequent review quality. PLoS Medicine 4: e40.
8. Cheung RB and LH Aiken 2008. Building an international nursing outcomes research agenda. Asian Nursing Research 2: 69-73.
9. Clark T and M Wright 2007. Reviewing journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews: Editorial perspectives. Journal of Management Studies 44: 612-21.
10. Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). 2010. http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors (accessed 4 March 2013).
11. Daniel HD. 2005. Publications as a measure of scientific advancement and of scientists' productivity. Learned Publishing 18: 143-8.
12. Ferris LE and RH Fletcher 2010. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: The world association of medical editors (WAME) position on a challenging problem. TX, USA: World Association of Medical Editors. http://www.wame.org/conflict-of-interest-editorial/?searchterm=Conflict of interest (accessed 5 January 2013)
13. Freda MC, MH Kerney, JG Baggs, ME Broome and M Dougherty 2009. Peer review training and editor support: Results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing 25: 101-8.
14. Graf C, E Wager, A Bowman, S Fiack, D Scott-Lichter and A Robinson 2007. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A publisher's perspective. International Journal of Clinical Practice 61(s152): 1-26.
15. Henly SJ and MC Doughty 2009. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nursing Outlook 57: 18-26.
16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2009. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Conflicts of interest. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html (accessed 5 January 2013).
17. Izumi S. 2009. Roles and rewards of journal peer reviews. Japan Journal of Nursing Science 6: 67-9.
18. Jackson JL, M Srinivasan, J Rea, KE Fletcher and RL Kravitz 2011. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 6: e22475.
19. Johnson C. 2010. Conflict of interest in scientific publications: A historical review and update. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 33: 81-6.
20. Johnstone MJ. 2012. Academic freedom and the obligation to ensure morally responsible scholarship in nursing. Nursing Inquiry 19: 107-5.
21. Journal Editor Ethics. 2012. Ethical practices of journal editors: Voluntary code of conduct. http://editorethics.uncc.edu/ (accessed 5 January 2013).
22. Kearney MH and MC Freda 2005. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health 28: 444-52.
23. Kearney MH, JG Baggs, ME Broome, MC Dougherty and MC Freda 2008. Experience, time investment and motivators of nursing journal reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 40: 395-400.
24. Kliewer MA, KS Freed, DM DeLong, RO Messing, JR Olsenbrg and SL Hauser 2005. Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics of the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology 184: 1731-5.
25. Knight L and TA Steinbach 2008. Selecting an appropriate publication outlet: A comprehensive model of journal selection criteria for researchers in a broad range of academic disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 3: 59-79.
26. Lambert VA, CE Lambert and M Tsukahara 2003. Editorial: Scholarly ethics. Nursing & Health Sciences 5: 101-2.
27. Luker K. 2007. Editorial: Assessing the quality of research: A challenge for nursing. Nursing Inquiry 14: 1.
28. Martin SA. 2010. Editorial: Accept or reject? Journal of Pediatric Health Care 24: 141-2.
29. Moos DD. 2011. The review process: What is it? Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 26: 49-53.
30. Moos DD and P Hawkins 2009. Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor's perspective. Nursing Forum 44: 79-92.
31. Mulligan A. 2005. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology 41: 135-41.
32. Richardson A and D Carrick-Sen 2011. Writing for publication made easy for nurses: An evaluation. British Journal of Nursing 20: 756-9.
33. Robinson JJA. 2009. 'Bad science' and publication ethics. International Nursing Review 56: 276.
34. Schroter S, N Black, S Evans, J Carpenter, F Godlee and R Smith 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 328: 673-5.
35. Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors. 2012. CSE's white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 3rd revised edn. Wheat Ridge, CO. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/public/entire_whitepaper.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013).
36. Shattell MM, P Chinn, SP Thomas and WR Cowling 2010. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 42: 58-65.
37. Smith R. 2006. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 90: 178-82.
38. Smith DR and TL Guidotti 2008. The peer-review process and its relationship with environmental and occupational health. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health 63: 3-6.
39. Tandan VR, A Mahajan, S Sharma and SK Gupta 2006. Unethical publication practices. JK Science 8: 123-4.
40. Tight M. 2003. Reviewing the reviewers. Quality in Higher Education 9: 295-303.
41. Tite L and S Schroter 2007. Why do peer reviews decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61: 9-12.
42. Turale S. 2010. Writing for international publication: A few tips for would-be authors. Nursing & Health Sciences 12: 143-4.
43. Turale S. 2011. Preparing nurses for the 21st century: Reflecting on nursing shortages and other challenges in practice and education. Nursing & Health Sciences 13: 229-31.
44. Van Teijlingen E and X Hundley 2002. Getting your paper to the right journal: A case study of an academic paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing 37: 506-11.
45. Weller AC. 2000. Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. Journal of American Society for Information Science 51: 1328-33.