Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers

An international survey

Marion Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, Margaret C. Freda, Margaret H. Kearney, Judith G. Baggs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Editors of scientific literature rely heavily on peer reviewers to evaluate the integrity of research conduct and validity of findings in manuscript submissions. The purpose of this study was to describe the ethical concerns of reviewers of nursing journals. This descriptive cross-sectional study was an anonymous online survey. The findings reported here were part of a larger investigation of experiences of reviewers. Fifty-two editors of nursing journals (six outside the USA) agreed to invite their review panels to participate. A 69-item forced-choice and open-ended survey developed by the authors based on the literature was pilot tested with 18 reviewers before being entered into SurveyMonkeyTM. A total of 1675 reviewers responded with useable surveys. Six questions elicited responses about ethical issues, such as conflict of interest, protection of human research participants, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of data and 'other'. The reviewers indicated whether they had experienced such a concern and notified the editor, and how satisfied they were with the outcome. They provided specific examples. Approximately 20% of the reviewers had experienced various ethical dilemmas. Although the majority reported their concerns to the editor, not all did so, and not all were satisfied with the outcomes. The most commonly reported concern perceived was inadequate protection of human participants. The least common was plagiarism, but this was most often reported to the editor and least often led to a satisfactory outcome. Qualitative responses at the end of the survey indicate this lack of satisfaction was most commonly related to feedback provided on resolution by the editor. The findings from this study suggest several areas that editors should note, including follow up with reviewers when they identify ethical concerns about a manuscript.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)741-748
Number of pages8
JournalNursing Ethics
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Nursing
Plagiarism
Manuscripts
Duplicate Publication
Literature
Conflict of Interest
Research
Ethics
Cross-Sectional Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • ethical concerns
  • nursing journals
  • online survey
  • peer reviewers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cite this

Broome, M., Dougherty, M. C., Freda, M. C., Kearney, M. H., & Baggs, J. G. (2010). Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey. Nursing Ethics, 17(6), 741-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733010379177

Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers : An international survey. / Broome, Marion; Dougherty, Molly C.; Freda, Margaret C.; Kearney, Margaret H.; Baggs, Judith G.

In: Nursing Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 6, 11.2010, p. 741-748.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Broome, M, Dougherty, MC, Freda, MC, Kearney, MH & Baggs, JG 2010, 'Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey', Nursing Ethics, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 741-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733010379177
Broome M, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG. Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey. Nursing Ethics. 2010 Nov;17(6):741-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733010379177
Broome, Marion ; Dougherty, Molly C. ; Freda, Margaret C. ; Kearney, Margaret H. ; Baggs, Judith G. / Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers : An international survey. In: Nursing Ethics. 2010 ; Vol. 17, No. 6. pp. 741-748.
@article{71c7d657092f4dc6b73bf2388808dcff,
title = "Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: An international survey",
abstract = "Editors of scientific literature rely heavily on peer reviewers to evaluate the integrity of research conduct and validity of findings in manuscript submissions. The purpose of this study was to describe the ethical concerns of reviewers of nursing journals. This descriptive cross-sectional study was an anonymous online survey. The findings reported here were part of a larger investigation of experiences of reviewers. Fifty-two editors of nursing journals (six outside the USA) agreed to invite their review panels to participate. A 69-item forced-choice and open-ended survey developed by the authors based on the literature was pilot tested with 18 reviewers before being entered into SurveyMonkeyTM. A total of 1675 reviewers responded with useable surveys. Six questions elicited responses about ethical issues, such as conflict of interest, protection of human research participants, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of data and 'other'. The reviewers indicated whether they had experienced such a concern and notified the editor, and how satisfied they were with the outcome. They provided specific examples. Approximately 20{\%} of the reviewers had experienced various ethical dilemmas. Although the majority reported their concerns to the editor, not all did so, and not all were satisfied with the outcomes. The most commonly reported concern perceived was inadequate protection of human participants. The least common was plagiarism, but this was most often reported to the editor and least often led to a satisfactory outcome. Qualitative responses at the end of the survey indicate this lack of satisfaction was most commonly related to feedback provided on resolution by the editor. The findings from this study suggest several areas that editors should note, including follow up with reviewers when they identify ethical concerns about a manuscript.",
keywords = "ethical concerns, nursing journals, online survey, peer reviewers",
author = "Marion Broome and Dougherty, {Molly C.} and Freda, {Margaret C.} and Kearney, {Margaret H.} and Baggs, {Judith G.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1177/0969733010379177",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "741--748",
journal = "Nursing Ethics",
issn = "0969-7330",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers

T2 - An international survey

AU - Broome, Marion

AU - Dougherty, Molly C.

AU - Freda, Margaret C.

AU - Kearney, Margaret H.

AU - Baggs, Judith G.

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Editors of scientific literature rely heavily on peer reviewers to evaluate the integrity of research conduct and validity of findings in manuscript submissions. The purpose of this study was to describe the ethical concerns of reviewers of nursing journals. This descriptive cross-sectional study was an anonymous online survey. The findings reported here were part of a larger investigation of experiences of reviewers. Fifty-two editors of nursing journals (six outside the USA) agreed to invite their review panels to participate. A 69-item forced-choice and open-ended survey developed by the authors based on the literature was pilot tested with 18 reviewers before being entered into SurveyMonkeyTM. A total of 1675 reviewers responded with useable surveys. Six questions elicited responses about ethical issues, such as conflict of interest, protection of human research participants, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of data and 'other'. The reviewers indicated whether they had experienced such a concern and notified the editor, and how satisfied they were with the outcome. They provided specific examples. Approximately 20% of the reviewers had experienced various ethical dilemmas. Although the majority reported their concerns to the editor, not all did so, and not all were satisfied with the outcomes. The most commonly reported concern perceived was inadequate protection of human participants. The least common was plagiarism, but this was most often reported to the editor and least often led to a satisfactory outcome. Qualitative responses at the end of the survey indicate this lack of satisfaction was most commonly related to feedback provided on resolution by the editor. The findings from this study suggest several areas that editors should note, including follow up with reviewers when they identify ethical concerns about a manuscript.

AB - Editors of scientific literature rely heavily on peer reviewers to evaluate the integrity of research conduct and validity of findings in manuscript submissions. The purpose of this study was to describe the ethical concerns of reviewers of nursing journals. This descriptive cross-sectional study was an anonymous online survey. The findings reported here were part of a larger investigation of experiences of reviewers. Fifty-two editors of nursing journals (six outside the USA) agreed to invite their review panels to participate. A 69-item forced-choice and open-ended survey developed by the authors based on the literature was pilot tested with 18 reviewers before being entered into SurveyMonkeyTM. A total of 1675 reviewers responded with useable surveys. Six questions elicited responses about ethical issues, such as conflict of interest, protection of human research participants, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misrepresentation of data and 'other'. The reviewers indicated whether they had experienced such a concern and notified the editor, and how satisfied they were with the outcome. They provided specific examples. Approximately 20% of the reviewers had experienced various ethical dilemmas. Although the majority reported their concerns to the editor, not all did so, and not all were satisfied with the outcomes. The most commonly reported concern perceived was inadequate protection of human participants. The least common was plagiarism, but this was most often reported to the editor and least often led to a satisfactory outcome. Qualitative responses at the end of the survey indicate this lack of satisfaction was most commonly related to feedback provided on resolution by the editor. The findings from this study suggest several areas that editors should note, including follow up with reviewers when they identify ethical concerns about a manuscript.

KW - ethical concerns

KW - nursing journals

KW - online survey

KW - peer reviewers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649614762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649614762&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0969733010379177

DO - 10.1177/0969733010379177

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 741

EP - 748

JO - Nursing Ethics

JF - Nursing Ethics

SN - 0969-7330

IS - 6

ER -