Manuscript reviewing: what reviewers have to say

Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses

PURPOSE

Dissemination of scholarly findings in peer-reviewed journals is critical for sustaining optimal evidence-based practice standards for advanced practice nurses (APNs). However, many schools of nursing do not teach the process or significance of peer review. The purpose of this article is to describe the peer review process and provide practical suggestions for APNs reviewing a research-based manuscript.

DATA SOURCES

This article was prepared by reviewing both theoretical and data-based literature concerning editorial peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

Reviewing manuscripts requires a high level of professional expertise and commitment. This article describes the history and benefits of peer review and provides a practical overview of the peer review process. A template has also been developed to serve as a checklist for critical elements relating to peer review.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Peer review has a critical role in improving the quality of nursing's published knowledge base and ultimately the quality of patient care. The ability to provide sound critique of nursing manuscripts is essential to the continued development of advanced practice nursing.

Reviewing the review process: towards good practice in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to nursing journals

Publishing in peer reviewed journals is an essential activity for nurses working in higher education. This paper offers some reflections on the processes involve in the reviewing of articles submitted for publication, and explores some ways in which this system may be improved. All journals operate some kind of review process. This can range from, at one end, the editor making decisions about the suitability for publication of a submitted paper to, at the other end, papers being blind-reviewed by two (or sometimes more) external referees. This paper notes that there appears to be little or no consistency amongst the various nursing journals with respect to reviewing processes. Suggestions put forward in this article for consideration include: the standardisation of peer review systems across journals; the construction of guidelines for referees which caution against ad hominem attacks on authors; and the introduction of 'open' reviewing.