Match!

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research

Published on Jan 1, 2009in Nursing Outlook2.54
· DOI :10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006
Susan J. Henly22
Estimated H-index: 22
(UMN: University of Minnesota),
Molly C. Dougherty24
Estimated H-index: 24
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 (20)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
4 Citations
28 Citations
44 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References37
Newest
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 jour...
102 CitationsSource
#1Mark GibsonH-Index: 43
#2Catherine Y. SpongH-Index: 62
Last. James R. ScottH-Index: 36
view all 5 authors...
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...
24 CitationsSource
#1Irene HamesH-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...
93 Citations
#1Irene HamesH-Index: 5
89 CitationsSource
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...
22 CitationsSource
#1Linda H. Bearinger (UMN: University of Minnesota)H-Index: 30
9 CitationsSource
#1Marion E. Broome (IUPUI: Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis)H-Index: 32
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...
4 CitationsSource
#1Sara SchroterH-Index: 24
#2Leanne TiteH-Index: 5
Last. Nick BlackH-Index: 59
view all 4 authors...
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...
87 CitationsSource
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...
5 CitationsSource
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...
34 CitationsSource
Cited By20
Newest
#1Amanda Sizo (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 3
#2Adriano Del Pino Lino (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 3
Last. Álvaro Rocha (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 16
view all 4 authors...
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...
Source
#1Cecilia Superchi (UPC: Polytechnic University of Catalonia)H-Index: 1
#2José Antonio González Alastrué (UPC: Polytechnic University of Catalonia)H-Index: 12
Last. Isabelle BoutronH-Index: 40
view all 6 authors...
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. We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as ...
2 CitationsSource
#1Amanda Sizo Lino (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 1
#2Álvaro Rocha (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 16
Last. Luís Paulo Reis (University of Porto)H-Index: 21
view all 3 authors...
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...
Source
#1Amanda Sizo (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 3
#2Adriano Del Pino Lino (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 3
Last. Álvaro Rocha (UC: University of Coimbra)H-Index: 16
view all 3 authors...
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...
3 CitationsSource
1 CitationsSource
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
5 CitationsSource
#1Parveen Ali (University of Sheffield)H-Index: 13
#2Roger Watson (University of Hull)H-Index: 46
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...
14 CitationsSource
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...
Source
#1Melanie Jasper (Swansea University)H-Index: 22
#2Mojtaba Vaismoradi (Swansea University)H-Index: 17
Last. Hannele Turunen (University of Eastern Finland)H-Index: 18
view all 4 authors...
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...
7 CitationsSource
#1Adedayo A. Onitilo (UQ: University of Queensland)H-Index: 20
#2Jessica M. Engel (Marshfield Clinic)H-Index: 17
Last. Suhail A. R. Doi (UQ: University of Queensland)H-Index: 31
view all 5 authors...
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...
7 CitationsSource