LEARNING THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF REVIEWING SCHOLARLY JOURNAL SUBMISSIONS Geraldine S. Pearson, PHD, PMH CNS, FAAN Editor, JAPNA APNA 10/19/16 The presenter has no conflicts of interest to declare Purpose of this Workshop Share a brief history of peer review Discuss the process of reviewing a scholarly manuscript Practice reviewing selected papers in small group formats This is a practical workshop without lots of theory or history Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 1
Outcome Goals Identify the process of reviewing a peer reviewed manuscript for publication Define writing and content flaws that might influence reviewer decision Engage in small group exercises that allows participants to conduct a mock review of a manuscript What is Peer Review The heart of a professional journal Editors rely on the quality of peer reviews that evaluate submitted manuscripts The best peer review process upholds high standards of quality and ethical conduct of the review Peer review involves experts in a given field appraising the contributions of others in the same field (Lee et al., 2013) Peer Review Goal is to guard the professional literature and maintain quality of publications In nursing the goal is to inform practice, illuminate knowledge, and stimulate discovery (Biddle, 2011) Differs widely across disciplines Double blind (most nursing journals) Single blind Open Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 2
Peer Review Not lacking in debate Bias is always a risk (Thomas, 2011) Language Specialty, negativity towards publishing certain findings Nationality (Ware, 2008) Peer Review Susceptible to publication ethics violations Fake peer reviewers Reviewers who don t declare their conflicts of interest Basic Requirement Knowledge of the field from which the manuscript is written Familiarity with research methods and statistics is useful BUT NOT REQUIRED Knowledge of the topic and the willingness to critically review the paper is essential Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 3
APNA PROCESS Authors submit their manuscript through the online system Manuscript Central They submit an authored version, a blinded version, an abstract, and any tables or charts accompanying the paper First review done by managing editor, Kristen Overstreet. Reviewed for correctness of submission Is blinded copy included? Are authors clearly delineated? Is language sufficiently understood so that it can be reviewed? Is paper or references in requested format? The manuscript then is placed in my editor section of manuscript central I review it one more time for language, appropriateness for the journal, and if research, presence of an IRB process in the Methods section I will flag the manuscript with any notes that I make for future reference, i.e. missing abstract, questionable information Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 4
Manuscript is ready for reviewers to look at it Reviewers are logged into Manuscript Central by keywords Currently revising the reviewer list and the keyword selection to make this more relevant In past anyone who submitted a manuscript that was accept to JAPNA was automatically included as a reviewer. As part of the revision to the process, reviewers will be invited I choose reviewers considering many factors: interest, presence or absence of research, numbers of reviews done in past year and presence of ongoing reviews My goal is to always have 2 reviewers. I frequently invite 3 5 given that many people do not respond AND many are not able to accept the manuscript for review Manuscripts with limited interest sometimes require 8 10 reviewer invites to get 2 When you receive an invitation to review Look at the paper title and decide if it is something you are interested in Does the topic present any conflict of interest? Is there any chance you might know the author(s)? Please decline if there is any question of this Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 5
After reviewing the title and abstract please respond with a decline or accept and try and avoid not responding If you respond with a decline I will immediately send it to another potential reviewer If your status as a reviewer has changed (i.e. vacation, leave of absence, sabbatical, change of position) please send an email and this will be noted in the reviewer information received by the editor Sometimes authors will suggest reviewers These individuals are always vetted with a google search I try and choose them as the 3 rd or 4 th choice and not the primary 2 reviewers If you are unable to do the review, please let the editor know It takes more work and effort to chase reviews that are not finished on time Just send an email if you get delayed or need more time to get the review finished Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 6
General Guidelines for Reviewers Read for content Read for specifics Appropriate citation of material Clarity of writing Logical progression of content Synthesis of sources Journal style and reference format Specific questions you will be asked to answer when you do a review Is the research or review paper original and will it advance the knowledge of the field? Is the paper appropriate for (JAPNA)? Is the current state of the knowledge accurately described? Does the paper address any gaps in knowledge? Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 7
Are research methods adequately described and was the research method used appropriate for the study Were ethical procedures used and described? Did the statistical analysis fit the data collected? If the manuscript reports a meta analysis, were the subjects appropriately pooled to do the analysis? Are the results reasonable and correctly reported by the author(s)? Do figures and tables contribute to the paper? Is any aspect of the paper misleading? Does the data back up the interpretation of the findings? Are results placed in the context of current knowledge? How does the manuscript relate to psychiatric nursing practice? (Pierson, 2014) Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 8
Would you want to read this paper in JAPNA? Would it add to your knowledge or insight about psychiatric nursing practice? If it is flawed, can it be corrected and published? Geraldine S. Pearson, PhD, PMH CNS, FAAN 9