Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support: Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers

Margaret Comerford Freda, Margaret H. Kearney, Judith Gedney Baggs, Marion E. Broome, Molly Dougherty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Topic: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. Methods: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. Results: Results showed that 65% wanted formal training, although only about 30% received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, "I still question my reviews" and "It took a few years." In this sample, 31% reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87% wanted feedback. Most (80%) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45% actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. Conclusions: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-108
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Professional Nursing
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2009

Fingerprint

Training Support
Nursing
Manuscripts
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires
Education

Keywords

  • Nursing
  • Peer review
  • Publication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support : Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers. / Freda, Margaret Comerford; Kearney, Margaret H.; Baggs, Judith Gedney; Broome, Marion E.; Dougherty, Molly.

In: Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.03.2009, p. 101-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Freda, Margaret Comerford ; Kearney, Margaret H. ; Baggs, Judith Gedney ; Broome, Marion E. ; Dougherty, Molly. / Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support : Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers. In: Journal of Professional Nursing. 2009 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 101-108.
@article{b6eb3eafce42471690b148ee8ff9a652,
title = "Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support: Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers",
abstract = "Topic: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. Methods: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. Results: Results showed that 65{\%} wanted formal training, although only about 30{\%} received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, {"}I still question my reviews{"} and {"}It took a few years.{"} In this sample, 31{\%} reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87{\%} wanted feedback. Most (80{\%}) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45{\%} actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. Conclusions: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.",
keywords = "Nursing, Peer review, Publication",
author = "Freda, {Margaret Comerford} and Kearney, {Margaret H.} and Baggs, {Judith Gedney} and Broome, {Marion E.} and Molly Dougherty",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "101--108",
journal = "Journal of Professional Nursing",
issn = "8755-7223",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer Reviewer Training and Editor Support

T2 - Results From an International Survey of Nursing Peer Reviewers

AU - Freda, Margaret Comerford

AU - Kearney, Margaret H.

AU - Baggs, Judith Gedney

AU - Broome, Marion E.

AU - Dougherty, Molly

PY - 2009/3/1

Y1 - 2009/3/1

N2 - Topic: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. Methods: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. Results: Results showed that 65% wanted formal training, although only about 30% received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, "I still question my reviews" and "It took a few years." In this sample, 31% reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87% wanted feedback. Most (80%) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45% actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. Conclusions: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.

AB - Topic: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. Methods: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. Results: Results showed that 65% wanted formal training, although only about 30% received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, "I still question my reviews" and "It took a few years." In this sample, 31% reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87% wanted feedback. Most (80%) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45% actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. Conclusions: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.

KW - Nursing

KW - Peer review

KW - Publication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62749181773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62749181773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007

DO - 10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 19306833

AN - SCOPUS:62749181773

VL - 25

SP - 101

EP - 108

JO - Journal of Professional Nursing

JF - Journal of Professional Nursing

SN - 8755-7223

IS - 2

ER -