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!

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research

Published on Jan 1, 2009in Nursing Outlook 2.54
· DOI :10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006
Susan J. Henly21
Estimated H-index: 21
(UMN: University of Minnesota),
Molly C. Dougherty24
Estimated H-index: 24
Cite
Abstract
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 Research from August 2006-July 2007. The General Assessment of Reviews of Nursing Research (GARNR) was developed to measure quality. Inter-rater reliability of the average of 2 raters' scores was satisfactory for most items and the scales. Quality was better for technical (design and methods) rather than background (theory and review of literature) aspects of a manuscript. Based on assessment of global quality, 18.9% of the reviews were deemed poor or inadequate. On average, statistical reviews were rated more highly than regular reviews, and reviewers from research intensive institutions wrote higher quality reviews than others. Recommendations for monitoring quality in the review process and guidelines for preparation of the review narrative to improve quality are made.
  • References (37)
  • Citations (19)
Cite
References37
Newest
Published on Jan 13, 2010
John C. Bailar1
Estimated H-index: 1
,
Kay Patterson1
Estimated H-index: 1
Journal peer review is a remote and mysterious business for many research investigators. Four paradigms seem to capture much current opinion about peer review of scientific works submitted for journal publication: the sieve (peer review screens worthy from unworthy submissions), the switch (a persistent author can eventually get anything published, but peer review determines where), the smithy (papers are pounded into new and better shapes between the hammer of peer review and the anvil of edito...
Published on Sep 1, 2008in Obstetrics & Gynecology 4.96
Mark Gibson29
Estimated H-index: 29
,
Catherine Y. Spong60
Estimated H-index: 60
+ 2 AuthorsJames R. Scott32
Estimated H-index: 32
OBJECTIVE: To survey authors submitting manuscripts to a leading specialty journal regarding their assessment of editorial review. The study sought factors affecting authors' satisfaction and whether authors rated the journal review processes differently from the commentary provided by different reviewers. METHODS: Participation in an online survey was offered to 445 corresponding authors of research manuscripts submitted consecutively during a 7-month period. All manuscripts received full edito...
Published on Jun 9, 2008
Irene Hames1
Estimated H-index: 1
Foreword. Preface. 1. Introduction. What should peer review do?. What does peer review assume?. What is this book trying to achieve?. 2. The peer-review process - how to get going. The basic process. The people involved in running the peer-review process. Office organization. Choice of system and procedures. 3. Manuscript submission and initial checks on completeness and suitability. Submission guidance to authors. Checking and logging of submitted manuscripts. Transfer to editor. Initial assess...
Published on Oct 1, 2006in Obstetrics & Gynecology 4.96
Annemieke P. Landkroon1
Estimated H-index: 1
,
Anne Margriet Euser1
Estimated H-index: 1
+ 2 AuthorsA. John P.M. Overbeke16
Estimated H-index: 16
OBJECTIVE: To validate and test a simple instrument for assessing the quality of a review. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, the quality of 247 reviews of 119 original articles submitted to the Dutch Journal of Medicine was assessed using a 5-point scale that has been used for years by Obstetrics & Gynecology. Each review was assessed by three editors of the journal. Intraobserver variability, calculated as an intraclass correlation coefficient, was assessed by having the same ed...
Published on Apr 1, 2006in Research in Nursing & Health 1.68
Linda H. Bearinger28
Estimated H-index: 28
(UMN: University of Minnesota)
Published on Mar 1, 2006in Nursing Outlook 2.54
Marion E. Broome32
Estimated H-index: 32
(IUPUI: Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis)
The topic of peer review has been the subject of debate in scientific circles for decades, yet it is viewed by many as one of the most stable and consistent practices in the world of scholarly journals. Peer review is defined as the scrutiny of manuscripts by technical experts or “referees.” The referees’ assessments are used by journal editors to make decisions about which papers to accept for publication. This process is sometimes an annoyance to authors, and is often perceived as unnecessaril...
Published on Jan 18, 2006in JAMA 51.27
Sara Schroter21
Estimated H-index: 21
,
Leanne Tite5
Estimated H-index: 5
+ 1 AuthorsNick Black55
Estimated H-index: 55
Context Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce. Objective To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication. Design, Setting, and Participants Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were instructed t...
Published on Oct 8, 2005in BMJ 27.60
Kristina Fi8
Estimated H-index: 8
Last month the fifth congress on peer review and biomedical publication was held in Chicago. The presentations highlighted that we still have plenty of room to improve the quality of published research Evidence started to matter in biomedical publishing soon after it came to matter in medicine—relatively recently. The first international congress on peer review and biomedical publication was held in Chicago in 1989. At the time of the third congress, in 1997, only 146 original scientific article...
Published on Mar 1, 2005in Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2.54
Margaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
,
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
Purpose :T odescribe the editorial practices of nurse editors, including proprietary arrangements, manuscript processing systems, and editorial review, and to ascertain editors’ opinions on effective editorial practices. Design :A descriptive study in which an author-designed 108-question survey was distributed and collected by e-mail. Of 177 international nursing editors identified, 164 e-mail addresses could be located, and 137 nurse editors expressed willingness to participate. Ninety journal...
Cited By19
Newest
Published on Mar 6, 2019in BMC Medical Research Methodology 2.51
Cecilia Superchi1
Estimated H-index: 1
(Paris V: Paris Descartes University),
José Antonio González Alastrué11
Estimated H-index: 11
+ 3 AuthorsIsabelle Boutron42
Estimated H-index: 42
Background A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.
Published on Jun 1, 2019in International Journal of Information Management 5.06
Amanda Sizo2
Estimated H-index: 2
(UC: University of Coimbra),
Adriano Del Pino Lino3
Estimated H-index: 3
(UC: University of Coimbra)
+ 1 AuthorsÁlvaro Rocha14
Estimated H-index: 14
(UC: University of Coimbra)
Abstract Assuring the quality control of publications in the scientific literature is one of the main challenges of the peer review process. Consequently, there has been an increasing demand for computing solutions that will help to maintain the quality of this process. Recently, the use of Artificial Intelligence techniques has been highlighted, applied in the detection of plagiarism, bias, among other functions. The assessment of the reviewer’s review has also been considered as important in t...
Published on Jun 1, 2018
Amanda Sizo Lino1
Estimated H-index: 1
(UC: University of Coimbra),
Álvaro Rocha14
Estimated H-index: 14
(UC: University of Coimbra),
Luís Paulo Reis20
Estimated H-index: 20
(University of Porto)
Maintaining the quality control of scientific literature is one of the main characteristics of the peer review process. However, it depends on the peers' effectiveness in minimizing the intrinsic subjectivity to the process. Publishers try to achieve this through training and guides for reviewers. However, there is no consensus as to what the main criteria for a good review are, which results in poorly reasoned or vague reports that do not assist the editor in his decision nor the author in impr...
Published on Mar 27, 2018
Amanda Sizo2
Estimated H-index: 2
(UC: University of Coimbra),
Adriano Del Pino Lino3
Estimated H-index: 3
(UC: University of Coimbra),
Álvaro Rocha14
Estimated H-index: 14
(UC: University of Coimbra)
Computational support has been applied in different stages for automation of the peer review process, such as reviewer assignment to the article, review of content of the scientific article, detection of plagiarism and bias, all applying Machine Learning (ML) techniques. However, there is a lack of studies which identify the instruments used to evaluate the reviewers’ reports. This systematic literature review aims to find evidence about which techniques have been applied in the assessment of th...
Published on Mar 1, 2017in Anesthesia & Analgesia 3.49
Franklin Dexter58
Estimated H-index: 58
,
Steven L. Shafer57
Estimated H-index: 57
Considerable attention has been drawn to poor reproducibility in the biomedical literature. One explanation is inadequate reporting of statistical methods by authors and inadequate assessment of statistical reporting and methods during peer review. In this narrative review, we examine scientific stu
Published on Oct 1, 2016
Parveen Ali11
Estimated H-index: 11
(University of Sheffield),
Roger Watson44
Estimated H-index: 44
(University of Hull)
Aims To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. Design Discussion paper. Methods This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. Res...
Published on Jun 1, 2014in Nursing Inquiry 1.50
Melanie Jasper17
Estimated H-index: 17
(Swansea University),
Mojtaba Vaismoradi16
Estimated H-index: 16
(Swansea University)
+ 1 AuthorsHannele Turunen18
Estimated H-index: 18
(University of Eastern Finland)
As pressure to publish increases in the academic nursing world, journal submission numbers and rejection rates are soaring. The review process is crucial to journals in publishing high quality, cutting-edge knowledge development, and to authors in preparing their papers to a high quality to enable the nursing world to benefit from developments in knowledge that affect nursing practice and patient outcomes and the development of the discipline. This paper does not intend to contribute to the deba...
Published on Mar 4, 2014in Accountability in Research
Adedayo A. Onitilo19
Estimated H-index: 19
(UQ: University of Queensland),
Jessica M. Engel16
Estimated H-index: 16
(Marshfield Clinic)
+ 2 AuthorsSuhail A. R. Doi29
Estimated H-index: 29
(UQ: University of Queensland)
Manuscript peer review is essential for ensuring accountability to all involved in the publication process, including authors, journals, and readers. Lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an accountable manuscript peer review process has resulted in varying practices from one journal to the next. Currently, reviewers are asked to make global judgments about various aspects of a paper for review irrespective of whether guided by a review checklist or not, and several studies have documente...
Published on Jan 1, 2014in Primary Health Care
Saurabh RamBihariLal Shrivastava8
Estimated H-index: 8
,
Prateek Saurabh Shrivastava6
Estimated H-index: 6
,
Jegadeesh Ramasamy7
Estimated H-index: 7
The rejection of manuscripts is quite a common phenomenon, and multiple reasons have been identified, which in combination provides enough evidence to the editorial board / reviewers’ to reach to their decision. The rejection letters generally serve two purposes, namely it proves that you have actually written up your work; and at the same time can be a source of good constructive criticism so that manuscripts can be significantly improved prior to submission to another journal. The authors shou...