Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch. Match!
  • References (3)
  • Citations (1)
Cite
References3
Newest
Published on Jan 1, 2009in Nursing Outlook 2.54
Susan J. Henly21
Estimated H-index: 21
(UMN: University of Minnesota),
Molly C. Dougherty24
Estimated H-index: 24
Dissemination of research findings through publication of results in peer reviewed journals is the gold standard in nursing science. Yet, little is known about quality of manuscript reviews or factors associated with review quality. The purpose of this project was to refine a methodology for assessing quality of reviews and then to evaluate review quality. We created a continuous quality improvement process to assess the narrative portion of 464 reviews of 203 manuscripts submitted to Nursing Re...
Published on Dec 1, 2008in Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2.54
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester),
Judith Gedney Baggs21
Estimated H-index: 21
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Yeshiva University)
Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Findings: Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from ...
Published on Oct 1, 2008in Journal of Advanced Nursing 2.38
Judith Gedney Baggs21
Estimated H-index: 21
(OHSU: Oregon Health & Science University),
Marion E. Broome32
Estimated H-index: 32
(IUPUI: Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis)
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester)
Title. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to assess the beliefs and preferences of reviewers for nursing journals about blinding of authors to reviewers, reviewers to authors, neither or both. Background. Blinding of author and reviewer names in the manuscript review process has been of interest to nursing editors, but reports that are based on data rather than simply opinion concern the editorial practices of biomed...
Cited By1
Newest
Published on Jul 1, 2010in Nursing Outlook 2.54
Susan J. Henly21
Estimated H-index: 21
(UMN: University of Minnesota),
Jill A. Bennett23
Estimated H-index: 23
(UMN: University of Minnesota),
Molly C. Dougherty1
Estimated H-index: 1
(UMN: University of Minnesota)
Sound statistical analysis is fundamental to high-quality reporting of quantitative studies. Peer review are also important in determining whether statistical procedures in submitted manuscripts are appropriate and effectively reported. However, the quality of statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to nursing journals has not been previously evaluated. The purpose of this project was to compare the content and quality of statistical and scientific (general) reviews of manuscripts submitted...