Plastic Surgical Nursing (PSN), the official journal of the International Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Nurses (ISPAN), is seeking plastic and aesthetic nurses to review manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal. Peer reviewers play an important role in contributing to the quality, value, reputation, and overall excellence of scholarly journals. In fact, the success and ultimate publication of scientific research ultimately depend on the individuals performing peer review!
There are many reasons that nurses give for not participating in peer review, and many of these reasons are downright surprising. Annesley (2012) presented an excellent article describing seven reasons for not being a peer reviewer and why these reasons are wrong. I present them here for your consideration.
Reason 1: I don't have enough experience to be a good peer reviewer. The concept that peer review requires years of education and experience is just not true. The key factor for a successful peer review is carefully reading the manuscript and providing your honest opinion about the content based on your experience as a plastic and aesthetic nurse.
Reason 2: I don't like to criticize other people's work. A peer reviewer is not a criticizer of the work. A peer reviewer should provide the author with constructive comments and suggestions about how to improve the manuscript. The reviewer should examine and comment on the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the manuscript. The editor makes the final decision about the manuscript and also considers feedback from other peer reviewers.
Reason 3: To serve as a peer reviewer, I have to understand the entire study. No one, not even the editor-in-chief, is an expert on every aspect of every study. If there are areas you are unfamiliar with and not able to review, just let the editor know. If the peer reviewer cannot understand portions of the content, it is likely that the reader may not understand the content as well, and the authors will probably need to provide additional clarification.
Reason 4: If I recommend revision, I will be obligated to review the revisions. It is true that you may be asked to reevaluate a manuscript after the authors have revised it and taken your comments into account. However, it can be exciting and quite satisfying to see how the authors responded to your comments and how the feedback you provided improved the manuscript.
Reason 5: Peer review only benefits the authors. No, no, no, no, no! Peer review benefits everyone, including the reviewer, the authors, and the readers. As a reviewer, you benefit from being able to review new research before it is published. You will also improve your knowledge about the research process and learn from the mistakes that authors make. You also learn from reading the comments made by others who reviewed the same article. As a peer reviewer, you benefit by improving your writing skills because you will see how other authors present and support their research, discuss the strengths and limitations of the research, and create figures and tables. Serving as a peer reviewer also creates a pathway for appointment to editorial boards. Your positive comments may be beneficial to the authors by improving the manuscript and increasing the authors' potential for publication that supports promotion or tenure. You work as a peer reviewer benefits readers by improving the quality and readability of the manuscript.
Reason 6: I will miss something, and a bad study will be published. At some point, you will miss something. Every peer reviewer does. Remember that you are not the only peer reviewer, and additionally, the editor and the publisher also review the manuscript. You are not solely responsible for determining whether or not the manuscript is published.
Reason 7: I think I may know the authors. At times, you may suspect that you know the authors. Plastic and aesthetic nursing is a relatively small community, and we all share a common interest, so it is possible that you may suspect (or even be sure) that you know the authors. This does not necessarily mean you should not complete the review. In fact, if you can provide a fair evaluation of the manuscript, you may actually be the best person to complete the review. However, if you have a conflict of interest, then you should ask the editor to excuse you as a reviewer for that manuscript.
As a peer reviewer for PSN, you can expect to receive up to three manuscripts per year, depending on your area of expertise. The review is requested and submitted electronically, and you also receive continuing education credits for manuscript review. If you have questions or are interested in becoming a manuscript reviewer, please contact me at mailto:[email protected]. I will be extremely happy to help you!
As a peer reviewer, you play an enormously important role in setting the standard for manuscripts published in the PSN journal. There are many excuses for not becoming a peer reviewer. Don't be intimidated by any of them! You can do this! As a peer reviewer, you not only give but also receive.
As listed on the masthead of our journal, the following individuals currently serve as peer reviewers:
* Marcia Barnes, DNP, APRN, ACNP-BC, CWS, CPSN, CANS
* Marilyn Cassetta, BScN, RN, CPSN, CANS
* Michele Cluff, RN, CPSN
* Linda Duffy, RN, CPSN, CPN
* Tracey Hotta, BScN, RN, CPSN, CANS, ISPAN-F
* Valentina Lucas, PhD, RN, ANP-BC
* Jenna Ryan, MSN, RN, CPN, WCC
* Dawn Sagrillo, MSN, AGNP-C, CANS, CPSN, ISPAN-F
* Enrique Salmeron-Gonzales, MD, PhD
* Kathleen Soso, MSN, RN, CPSN-R, ISPAN-F
* Rachelle Springer, MS, APRN, ACNS-BC, CPSN, HCRM
* Pat Terrell, MSN, CPNP, CPSN, CNOR
I am so grateful and appreciative for the time and expertise these dedicated individuals contribute and for the work that they do to make PSN the best it can be.
This issue of PSN is chock full of interesting and informative articles addressing a variety of topics. In addition to the inspiring messages provided by Amanda Bailey, our ISPAN President, Renee Hinojosa, President of our Plastic Surgical Nursing Certification Board (PSNCB), and, of course, my own inspiring message, this issue includes a continuing education article by Hotta and Harrison (2020) that discusses evidence-based practice in medical aesthetics nursing. Also included in this issue is a remarkably interesting Letter to the Editor describing a study showing that men report higher levels of acute pain than women (Salmeron-Gonzalez, Garcia-Vilarino, Sanchez-Garcia, & Perez-Garcia, 2020). Alonso-Carpio, Sanchez-Garcia, Trapero, and Perez-del Caz (2020) report on the use of amniotic membrane as a biological dressing for the treatment of torpid venous ulcers, Firmino et al. (2020) describe their study about prevalence, characteristics, and associated factors of malignant wounds in hospitalized oncology patients, and Ballestas, Soriano, and Sethna (2020) provide an assessment of the readability of online rhytidectomy patient information. A copy of the 2020 ISPAN Virtual Meeting abstracts has also been included, so you can start planning which sessions you will be attending. As if that were not enough to keep a plastic or aesthetics nurse busy, there is more! Two excellent articles that have been published previously in PSN have also been included (Horner, 2017; Michalski & Olasz, 2016).
I wish you all much health and happiness and I hope to see you virtually at the ISPAN Meeting!
Respectfully,
Sharon Ann Van Wicklin, PhD, RN, CNOR, CRNFA(E),
CPSN-R, PLNC, FAAN, ISPAN-F
Editor-in-Chief, Plastic Surgical Nursing
REFERENCES