Authors’ and Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review Quality in Three Scholarly Nursing Journals

Authors

  • Mona M. Shattell RN, PhD,

    1. Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, School of Nursing, and Editor of Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Greensboro, NC, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Peggy Chinn RN, PhD, FAAN,

    1. Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut, and Editor of Advances in Nursing Science, Storrs, CT, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sandra P. Thomas RN, PhD, FAAN,

    1. Professor and Director of the Doctoral Program, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, College of Nursing, and Editor of Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Knoxville, TN, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • W. Richard Cowling III RN, PhD, APRN-BC

    1. Professor and Director Doctoral Program, School of Nursing, University of North Carolina Greensboro, and Editor, Journal of Holistic Nursing, Greensboro, NC, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence
Dr. Mona M. Shattell, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, School of Nursing, PO Box 26170, Moore Building 320, Greensboro, NC 27402. E-mail: mona_shattell@uncg.edu

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. Specifically, the study examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts.

Methods: Corresponding authors who had submitted manuscripts to the study journals in 2005–2007 were invited via email to complete an online survey about the quality of the peer review process; 320 authors responded. In addition, one third of the reviews of manuscripts submitted in 2005–2007 (a total of 528) were selected for rating by journal editors on level of detail, bias, and constructive tone; usefulness to authors in revising/developing the manuscript; and usefulness to the editor in making a decision.

Results: A majority (73.8%) of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and 75.6% agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale for editors’ decisions. New authors generally reported less satisfaction with reviews than more experienced authors. Ratings of reviews by the editors revealed some problem areas, including inconsistency, insufficient feedback to the author, reviewer bias, and disrespectful tone.

Conclusions: Given the inexperience of many nurse authors, it is incumbent upon editors and reviewers to provide guidance and support. Manuscript reviews could be improved by increasing the consistency of numeric ratings, narrative comments, and recommendations regarding disposition of the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the results of this study reaffirm the worth of the peer review approach.

Clinical Relevance: Publication of research and other forms of scholarly work is critical to the development of nursing knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. Authors with a variety of backgrounds, knowledge, and skills have important work to share that can serve healthcare providers and their clients. Thus, ensuring the quality of the peer review process is essential.

Ancillary