Peer review, in one form or another, is fundamental to research-based fields and scholarly publication. Peer review is the process by which experts in a given topic area evaluate the written work submitted by others in the field and provide feedback related to the suitability of the manuscript for publication (Lee, Sugimoto, Cronin, & Freeman, 2013; Lovejoy, Revenson, & France, 2011; Price, 2014). In nursing, a profession grounded in evidence-based practice, peer review is a vital step toward disseminating evidence and best practices in nursing journals and other publications. For this reason, it is important that nurses become involved in the peer review process. The purposes of this article are to share my experience as a peer reviewer and to provide readers with a general explanation of how the peer review process works, what a peer reviewer's responsibilities are, and the benefits of the review process.
When I was a beginning nursing student, the idea of becoming a peer reviewer seemed like an impossibility. I thought that it was a task for elevated scientists and scholars, not for a regular person like me. Fortunately, I was blessed with nurse educators and mentors who helped me change my view, break down the mental barriers, and navigate the way to publication and peer review. I am excited to share my story in the hope that it will encourage others to participate in the peer review process.
I inquired about becoming a peer reviewer after having a manuscript accepted for publication. After the immense time and effort put forth in research and manuscript preparation, the reviewers' honest comments had strong impact on my peers and me. The comments were both critical and encouraging and required us to reflect not only on what we could improve but also on what we could celebrate. Responding to the reviewer comments, though the reviewers' identities were unknown, allowed me to have a conversation with the experts I formerly perceived as "out of my league." Through the process, I realized that we were speaking the same professional language and cared about the quality of the content. The experience made peer review tangible and gave me confidence to move forward in the publication process.
GETTING STARTED
My first step into becoming a peer reviewer was an inquiry e-mail to the journal editors. I simply asked what I needed to do to become involved in the process. I received nearly immediate response with a link to the reviewer application and assurance that I would receive support along the way as a novice reviewer. The statement was and continues to be very true. My initial reviews took several hours to complete and were painfully detailed-outlining long lists of typographical and spelling errors-which I learned was not the right approach. Thanks to coaching and continued experience, my reviews have become much more timely and succinct.
REVIEW PROCESS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The primary responsibility of a reviewer is providing timely, objective evaluation of a manuscript. The review process begins with an e-mail invitation from the editor to review a specific manuscript. The e-mail contains the title of the article, a link to the abstract, and hyperlinks to either accept or decline the reviewer invitation. If unable to accept the invitation because of time commitments, conflict of interest, or lack of knowledge of the subject, it is best to decline immediately to allow the editors to find another reviewer in a timely manner. Once the reviewer invitation is accepted, comments and recommendation regarding publication will be submitted back to the editor via an electronic manuscript management system within a timeline determined by the individual journal. For example, manuscripts reviewed for JNPD have a 14-day timeline. The time it takes to review and provide comments and a recommendation for a manuscript varies depending on the length of the work, complexity of methods, and the degree of revision required. My early reviews could take from 3 to 4 hours between reading, making notes, and writing and submitting the review. As I have gained experience, I find the process generally takes 1 to 2 hours. In my experience, an invitation to review a manuscript arrives in my inbox approximately every 6-8 weeks.
Reviewers work from guidelines or a reviewer checklist specific to the particular journal in order to guide their comments and recommendations. In general, evaluation of a manuscript begins with simple assessment of adherence to author guidelines and a review of credibility, such as if the abstract adequately describes the article, if the manuscript meets the page limits, and if the references are current and appropriately cited. A high level of copy editing is not typically expected from peer reviewers. Instead, review of grammar and punctuation can be limited to noting if few or numerous grammar or spelling errors exist but does not require a note for correction of every error found (Lovejoy et al., 2011). Further review of the manuscript includes appraisal of readability, relevance, organization, credibility, timeliness, and rigor of research (as applicable). The reviewer is responsible for determining if the manuscript flows logically, whether tables and figures are appropriate, and if the purpose is clearly stated and relevant to, or fits within, the scope of the particular journal.
The peer reviewer must assess if the literature review is thorough and logically linked to the purpose and theoretical framework for the study. If the manuscript is research based, the reader also reviews research methodology as applicable for appropriate design, sample size, data analysis, and discussion of results. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the peer reviewer identifies if the manuscript makes a relevant contribution to the field (Bengtson & MacDermid, 2016; Lovejoy et al., 2011).
Reviewers have the responsibility to note if the study/project was ethical in nature and if an institutional review board review was secured when appropriate. In addition, reviewers have an ethical responsibility to review content within their specialty or interest area. When completing the online profile for becoming a peer reviewer, reviewers are encouraged to select at least one classification or specialty covered by the journal as an area of interest and/or expertise to help the editors select the topics of manuscripts the reviewer is asked to review. It is important to note that reviewers must agree to keep the content of all manuscripts confidential and identify any personal or professional conflicts of interest if and when they occur.
The reviewer can elect to "accept" the manuscript as is, "accept if revised as suggested," or "do not accept for publication." Reviewers provide commentary to the manuscript writers as well as confidential comments to the editors with a recommendation for or against publication. The use of single-blind, double-blind, or open review format varies by journal. My experience has been with a double-blind review format, in which the identities of the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous. This attempt to reduce bias provides me the comfort of objectivity in my commentary. A good review is honest, identifies the merits and shortcomings of the manuscript, and offers suggestions for improvement (Bengtson & MacDermid, 2016). Two or three reviewers may be invited to make commentary on the same manuscript independently. After the reviews are complete, the editor will take the comments into consideration to make a final decision regarding publication. The anonymous reviewer comments and publication recommendation are viewable by the author and the other reviewers within the Editorial Manager system, only after his or her review is submitted.
BENEFITS
The benefits I receive from participating in peer review are numerous. Peer reviewing in general is unpaid, voluntary work but is a great opportunity for reviewers to provide service to the profession while furthering one's own professional growth. Acting as a manuscript reviewer gives me the opportunity to encourage others in the field while assisting in upholding high standards for the profession. It gives me a "sneak peek" at up-and-coming research and hot topics to anticipate hearing more about in the future. Being a reviewer also serves as a form of self-assessment as I compare my review comments with those of the second anonymous reviewer and the final decision of the editors. Many times the recommendations match, but sometimes they do not. It is important to remember that just because one's recommendation does not match the final decision, it does not necessarily mean the reviewer did a poor job. The comments still help the editor make a decision regarding publication (Lovejoy et al., 2011). The process requires me to stay up-to-date on professional writing guidelines and continually review research methodologies. Finally, being involved in peer review gives me the opportunity to show my peers and students that publication and peer review are achievable goals.
CONCLUSION
Peer review is fundamental to science-based fields, and nursing is no exception. Peer review provides benefits to the reviewer and the author(s) of the reviewed work. Nurses in education and professional development should consider taking part in peer review for publications as a way to promote quality in the nursing profession, to give back to the profession through service, and as a form of professional development.
References