Three years ago, when we inaugurated open peer review in Nursing Research, we expected to give our readers and reviewers insight into the editorial process that transpires between the submission and the acceptance of a manuscript for publication (Dougherty, 2004). We started an open manuscript review on the Nursing Research Editor's Web site (http://www.nursing-research-editor.com) cautiously with the intention of expanding the number of manuscripts and reviews posted. Thus far, we have posted 32 manuscripts and corresponding reviews. Fourteen were posted in 2006 and 12 more through July/August 2007, reflecting an increasing number of postings each year.

Although there are well-founded criticisms of peer review, scholars support its value in improving the content and presentation of scholarly articles (Dougherty, 2006). Usually, the contribution of peer reviewers is hidden and anonymous to readers. Open peer review sheds light on peer reviewers' contributions. Many reviews are complete and incisive in the assessments and recommendations they provide and could only be written by scientists with specialized knowledge in the area addressed by the manuscript. These reviews support the development of scholarship in our discipline, and it is gratifying to be able to post them and to call attention to them in Nursing Research.

Our open manuscript review feature has evolved to include postings of reviews that request extensive revision, multiple reviews on manuscripts in which reviewers were not in agreement, authors' comments that address conflicting recommendations by reviewers, and correspondence between the editor and author. These materials allow developing authors to see how others address conflicting recommendations and provide examples of the negotiation that occur in the final stages of the editorial process. Reviewers tell us that they learn from approaches that other reviewers use in writing assessments of research reports.

Periodically, we receive e-mail from readers (including students!) who report that the comments by authors and reviewers help them understand the fine points of research and publishing. We delight in these comments because we realize that we are reaching our intended audience and are succeeding in our goals of advancing science, building scholarship in nursing, and mentoring authors and reviewers. None of these goals would be possible without an array of authors and reviewers who value scientific advances, enjoy engagement in the editorial process, and savor the challenge of delivering a clear, cogent message.

Molly (Mickey) C. Dougherty, PhD, RN

Editor

References