Nursing Outlook
Volume 57, Issue 1 , Pages 18-26 , January 2009

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research

  • Susan J. Henly, PhD, RN

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Dr. Susan J. Henly, University of Minnesota, School of Nursing, 5-140 WDH, 308 Harvard St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
    • ,
  • Molly C. Dougherty, PhD, RN, FAAN

References 

  1. Broome ME. Peer review: Evolution or revolution?. Nurs Outlook. 2006;54:61–62
  2. Freda MC, Kearney M. An international survey of nurse editors: Roles and practices. J Nurs Sch. 2005;37:87–94
  3. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96–97
  4. Committee on Publication Ethics. A code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals. www.publicationethics.org.uk2004;Accessed on June 4, 2006
  5. Drazen JM. Scientists at the gate [Letter]. New York Times 2006, May 9 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E5D9163EF93AA35756C0A9609C8B63Accessed on June 16, 2008
  6. American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: APA; 2001;
  7. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences. (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books; 2003;
  8. Mohr WK. A commentary on comments. Nurs Outlook. 2001;49:119–120
  9. Walker K. (2004). Double b(l)ind: Peer-review and the politics of scholarship. Nurs Phil. 2004;5:135–146
  10. Bailar JC, Patterson K. Journal peer review: The need for a research agenda. NEJM. 1985;312:2869–2871
  11. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smoke screen?. BMJ. 1999;318:44–45
  12. Fišter K. At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005. BMJ. 2005;331:838–840
  13. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295:314–317
  14. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review in a general medical journal. JAMA. 1998;280:231–233
  15. Dougherty MC, Lin S-Y, McKenna HP, Seers K. International content of high-ranking journals in the year 2000. J Nurs Sch. 2004;36:173–179
  16. Gennaro S. Advancing knowledge that improves world health. J Nurs Sch. 2007;39:289–290
  17. Link AM. U.S. and non-U.S. submissions, an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA. 1998;280:246–247
  18. Bearinger LH. Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29:71–73
  19. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA. 1998;280:229–231
  20. Garfunkel JM, Lawson EE, Hamrick HJ, Ulshen MH. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. JAMA. 1990;263:1376–1378
  21. Hames I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals (Guidelines for Good Practice). Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2007;
  22. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. JAMA. 1990;263:1373–1376
  23. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJPM. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:979–985
  24. Weber EJ, Katz PP, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML. Author perception of peer review (Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction). JAMA. 2002;287:2790–2793
  25. Bauer JE, Duffy GL, Westcott RT. The Quality Improvement Handbook. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press; 2002;
  26. Dougherty MC. Open peer review (A first step). Nurs Res. 2004;53:213
  27. Crocker L, Algina J. Process of Test Construction. In: Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1986;p. 66–86
  28. DeVellis RF. Scale Development (Theory and Applications). Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991;
  29. van Rooyen S, Black N, Godlee F. Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. J Clin Epi. 1991;52:625–629
  30. Armstrong GD. The intraclass correlation as a measure of interrater reliability of subjective judgments. Nurs Res. 1981;30:314–315320A
  31. Feurer ID, Becker GJ, Picus D, Ramirez E, Darcy MD, Hicks ME. Evaluating peer reviews: Pilot testing of a grading instrument. JAMA. 1994;272:98–100
  32. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786–2790
  33. Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews. J Gen Int Med. 1993;8:422–428
  34. Lock S. Does editorial peer review work?. Ann Int Med. 1994;121:60–61
  35. World Association of Medical Editors [WAME]. The responsibilities of medical editors. http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#impact2003;Accessed on December 11, 2007
  36. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer review quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318–322
  37. Wager E, Godlee F, Jefferson T. How to Survive Peer Review. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002;
  38. Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing Research. (7th ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2004;
  39. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–2786
  40. Vandenbroucke JP. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge. Lancet. 1998;352:2001–2006

PII: S0029-6554(08)00147-4

doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006

Nursing Outlook
Volume 57, Issue 1 , Pages 18-26 , January 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution