Crafting a meaningful nursing peer review

Nursing peer review helps to ensure that significant and relevant high-quality works get published advance the nursing discipline.1-3 Peer reviewers in provide input journal editors authors based on their expertise. In addition ensuring accurate, useful, timely pieces fit with target journals audiences published, knowledge, skills, abilities. preview emerging research hot topics while contributing profession.1-3 Despite benefits profession themselves, does not always meet intended outcomes. This is due many factors including there often required, formalized training for reviewers.4 are asked complete reviews topic expertise even when they have little no or experience completing a review. As result, may be done properly, which can mean quality rejected poor accepted. Or, articles include implications practice. These outcomes threaten advancement of profession. However, proper training, meaningful feedback enhances (or do published). Thus, this article outlines steps crafting help themselves. An important first step deciding if you time appropriately.1 When an invitation sent potential reviewers, editor usually sends abstract as well requested timeframe returning review.4 take several hours complete,1 depending variety reviewer experience, familiarity topic, complexity work. You will want consider available comprehensively within requested. Regarding expertise, knowledge background about thorough fair evaluation manuscript.1 Also, any conflicts interest work and/or author.5 It appropriate decline these reasons, just remember so promptly.5 Promptly declining allows find suitable replacement manner keeps manuscript moving through process. Readability. Is paper organized logical flow? Does make sense? Fit. terms its focus, writing style, audience? Importance/Relevance. add literature by offering new insights information? interesting? offer applied practice? Bias. free from bias—methods, presentation content? Once overall impression work, need decide fatal flaws would prevent it being published. Fatal major issues ethics, theory, methods severe extensive revision could solve issue.7 Examples limited understanding literature, mismatch between question, design, assumptions grounded data, poorly designed study (e.g., inappropriate sample population size, wrong method), deviation best practices ethics.7 If identify flaw(s), note but should spend reviewing further.4 Write explains why you've decided continue back up your decision evidence. Give author suggestions move forward can. Introduction/Background. section set stage rest paper? related Are needed references included? concise clear? Literature Review. context key missing? Body/Design/Results. Tailor type article. For example, conceptual piece headings? data collection analysis considerations? sampling, institutional board approval, rigor trustworthiness, protocols) Discussion. compare what known content how apply specific easy follow? discussion thoroughly address all areas? Conclusion. summarize entire succinct way? restate earlier information Tables/Figures/Illustrations. each table/figure/illustration needed? duplicate written supplement manuscript? tables/figures/illustrations clear additional helpful? References. current overall? older offered, explanation were offered classic seminal works? too few references? in-text citations used appropriately? Abstract. Review last. manner? gain reader's interest? land “so what” factor nursing? Table 1 provides tips providing detailed feedback.1-6 Remember think way mentor colleague. But remember, ultimately author's consultant, author. Monroe1 suggests focusing positives, problems, improvements. identified mostly positive? Mostly negative? What notes support? Can outlined reasonably addressed 1–2 revisions? Or more Needing revisions grounds rejection. other words, made, ready acceptance? waste author, editor, (and rejected). Remember, base recommendation evidence, made one presented. Rejection end journey. Your them wish revisit resubmit another journal. revision, who revision. That way, familiar evaluate made. go different concerns. frustrating editors, alike introduce issues. expected uphold professional standards ethics part One aspect responsibility involves maintaining confidentiality during processes. Do share others, colleagues students. Additionally, use found own benefit scholarly activities before becomes publicly available. Maintaining allowing exchange ideas, protecting authors, integrity Most ask areas Those subject methodological categories manuscripts skills under Make sure periodically those profile, remove outdated areas, update represent Keeping profile facilitate matching manuscripts. final engaging continuous development.1, 5 reflect conduct after completed it. Ask yourself, did I do? went well? improve upon future? also elicit see performing. Another positive sign well.1, Many inform decision. Some access comments suggestions. Reading reviewers' assess aligns others. items future reviews. Use resources such ones provided journal, Committee Publication Ethics, Emerald Group, Wiley, BMJ development opportunities enhance skills.1 There workshops webinars attend.1 Example offerings listed 2. Title Source Checklist Providing Feedback Nurse Author Editor Reviewers Journal Writing Course University Utah The Editor's Handbook Freda & Nicoll, 2015 To illustrate review, exemplar was created. See Figure example begins overview, then chronological order section, citing locations concludes summary next Exemplar review*. significant, relevant, reach partially lack training. gaining impression, feedback, making recommendation, confidentiality, updating development. Following nurses positively impact disclose. Jennifer Chicca, PhD, RN, CNE, CNEcl Senior Manager National League Commission Education Accreditation, Washington, DC Part-time Faculty Member North Carolina Wilmington Master Science Program, Wilmington, NC. She experienced nurse has worked development, academia, accreditation, undergraduate graduate students roles settings. Contact email: [email protected]. Teresa Shellenbarger, CNEcl, ANEF Executive Director Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Indiana Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. educator currently serves Author-In-Residence regularly contributes writing.