The search for journal reviewers is an ongoing task that occurs with any publication. Peer reviewers are an essential part in the submission process and play a role that should be better recognized and valued. Without the process of peer review, there may be editor bias, lack of editor expertise in a particular area of plastic surgery, and a decrease in submissions. It is the hope that as nurses review submissions, their increased confidence with the editing process will provide them with the skills to submit their own articles. The reviewers are considered an extension of the editorial team and hopefully will be able to suggest potential authors to the editor (Rosenblaum, 2005).
The use of the Editorial Manager (EM)-an online submission and peer review system-has simplified the peer review process to be more efficient, which, in turn, improves the quality of the journal. When an article is submitted through the EM, it is first reviewed by the Editor. If the Editor decides that the article has the quality to be published, it will be sent to reviewers who have expertise in the practice area the article represents. The reviewer would then follow steps outlined later.
1. If you are chosen as a reviewer for a manuscript, you will receive an invitation to review e-mail from the journal editor requesting your assistance. There are two methods for responding to invitations:
* Log in to Editorial Manager as a Reviewer and respond directly to the invitation in the "New Reviewer Invitations" folder.
* Respond to the invitation using the deep-links (hot-links) in the e-mail invitation. Deep links are hyperlinks that the Journal Office will include in the e-mail notification that are sent as part of the automated invitation element of EM.
Clicking on the link will then automatically log you in to EM and take you to the appropriate screen in EM where you will receive confirmation that your choice was received by the Web site. It is advisable to review the manuscript before deciding to agree to be a reviewer. If the reviewer cannot meet the deadline date or feels that the manuscript is outside his or her area of expertise or he or she has a perceived conflict of interest that may cause a bias, then the prospective reviewer should decline to assume this responsibility. The reviewer would select Decline to Review out of fairness to the author. This decision would be sent to the journal editor, who may then select another reviewer.
By clicking Agree to Review, the reviewer is agreeing to provide an informed opinion about the manuscript. The decision of whether the article is to be published will be made by the editor after the reviews are completed. There is a golden rule that must be followed: treat all manuscripts in the same manner that you would want your own treated (Benos, Kirk, & Hall, 2003). The reviewer's comments are to be in a positive, but constructive manner. Being precise and providing suggestions on how to correct the flaws are very helpful to the author. The reviewer will be sent an e-mail that includes a due date for the review to be completed and detailed instructions for submitting the review. After you agree to review, the submission will move from your New Reviewer Invitations folder and to your Pending Assignments folder, where you can begin the review process.
2. Find your new submissions in the Pending Assignments folder. Click View Submission to view the submission in PDF format. There are different methods to performing a review, but the criteria to be evaluated remain consistent. You may briefly read through the manuscript to get a sense of what the manuscript is about and then do your review in more detail. Others may do a detailed review from the first read. There is no correct method and you will develop what is comfortable for you. The reviewer is responsible for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the article and then providing suggestions on how to improve the quality of work. The reviewer may be faced with a flawed article but through constructive and positive criticism, the manuscript may be revised to become a quality article. It is important to note that the author is blinded from the reviewer; therefore, any comments that are made to the editor are done in confidence without being made available to the author (Wolters, 2011).
According to the article written by Benos et al. (2003), when reviewing the manuscript, there are several key points to consider.
* Is the title specific and does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
* Is the abstract brief and does it indicate the purpose and significance? The abstract should provide a summary that presents the manuscripts most important work. The reviewer should ask himself or herself, "If I could not read the entire manuscript, would the abstract adequately summarize it?" (Provenzale & Stanley, 2006).
* Is the writing clear, concise, and using the proper APA format?
* Is the paper original? Does it have quality and importance to the plastic surgery industry?
* Are you able to identify errors, misinterpretation, or author bias?
* Does it appear that information is missing, or that more detail is needed to make a point clearer?
* Is the scientific method appropriate and presented in sufficient detail to allow the results to be repeated? Has the author attempted to explain unexpected findings?
* Are the scientific data adequate to support the conclusions?
* The use of figures, tables, and graphs can assist the author to clarify a point. Are they well labeled and can you understand it without having to refer to the manuscript? Are they beneficial to the article or should they be omitted?
* Are the references cited correctly? Suggest more references if necessary. The format should follow the following examples.
Journal Article: Smith, B., & Jones, M. (2000). Care delivery in the new millennium. Program evaluation: Key to success. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30(3), 15-21.
Magazine Article: Posner, M. I. (1993, October 29). Seeing the mind. Science, 262, 673-674.
Book: Chandler, R. (2000). Nursing care delivery of tomorrow (pp. 87-103). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Web Citations:http://www.skincancer.org-retrieved June 5, 2011
3. Once the submission has been reviewed and critically analyzed, click Submit Recommendation to open the review form.
4. Click Reviewer Instructions to view instructions from the journal office. Pick a recommendation term from the drop-down box at the top of the form. The options are as follows: no decision, accept, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, or reject. By selecting the "accept" recommendation, the reviewer implies that there are no flaws in the manuscript and it is suitable for publication "as is." When selecting "pending minor revisions," the reviewer includes suggestions on how the manuscript can be modified to make it a flawless article. This may include correction of typographical errors, clarification, or sentence restructuring. Submitting a "major revision" recommendation indicates that the author will need to make considerable changes to have the manuscript proceed to publication. A manuscript may be "rejected" if the manuscript has been plagiarized, submitted for another journal, is inappropriate for the target audience of the journal, or is so poorly written that no amount of revisions will make it suitable for publication.
5. Complete the Manuscript Rating Questions. This rating will assist the Editor to making the final decision for publication.
6. Enter Blind Comments to the Author. These comments will be included in the decision letter that is sent to the author. Remember, do not include your name or any other revealing information about yourself or the submission recommendation.
7. Enter Confidential Comments to the Editor. It is important to note that these comments will not be shared with the authors or other reviewers.
8. Click Proof and Print to see a proof of the review before submitting to the journal office.
9. The last step is to click Submit Review to Journal Office to send the review to the journal.
The role of a journal reviewer is a recognized and critical component to the journal submission process. Without skilled and knowledgeable reviewers, our journal would not be able to maintain the high standards that have been set forth by ASPSN. As the editor, I am very grateful for the knowledge, professionalism, and dedication that have been displayed by your review board. If any members of ASPSN are interested in becoming a reviewer for our journal, please don't hesitate to contact me at [email protected].
Respectfully,
Tracey A. Hotta, BScN, RN, CPSN
Editor, PSN
REFERENCES