Margaret H. Kearney
Rigorous Peer Review is Worth the Effort
University of Rochester
given increasing pressure nurses publish tempted unsolicited invitations submit new journal promising rapid turnaround likely acceptance wouldnt nice manuscripts accepted instantly published promptly without revision certainly would less work authors reviewers editors fact era journal proliferation publication newer journals limited scrutiny manuscript depressingly common bohannon 2013 kearney inane publishing practices collaborative 2015 even journals established peer review processes manuscript reviewers may invited based keyworddriven automated searches internet past submitting authors regardless whether work merited publication rather drawing established review panel eligibility criteria result even top research journals review quality may mixed clinical journals reviewers may extensive clinical experience limited research training reviewers limited research background may misled authors convincing claims finding achieved weak limited research design ready clinical application although may experienced personally relative frequency weak research published danger public also authors faulty research published misleads research consumers including students clinicians patients exciting report poorlydesigned study published may accepted evidence support approach ready prime time example behavioral intervention using smartphones produces better outcomes one clinic another similar clinic using intervention author reporting uncontrolled study concludes evidence supports wider implementation intervention cascade problems result given current enthusiasm technologymediated interventions clinical leaders may inspired invest smartphones staff training clinic time extend intervention decisions raise healthcare costs may even cause harm bettertested approaches care set aside contrast strong peer reviewers smartphone intervention paper recognize immediately given nonrandom assignment intervention success may consequence unmeasured differences participants mental health technological health literacy leisure time superior health care accompanying intervention rather consequence intervention researchinformed peer reviewer familiar basic concept internal validity caution strongly basing clinical care report call revisions manuscript remove implications intervention ready clinical use perhaps randomized trial wider test called astute reviewer point appropriate conclusions strong manuscript review gift editors authors reviews characteristics depicted present complete appraisal manuscript review none novel value ask rinah reviewers guide strong review includes appraisal significance health problem studied terms local world health study focus small topic related research measurement useful researchers limited significance understanding health improvement clinical care larger question related health improvement place strong reviewer judges degree authors accurately appraise importance topic reviewer also applies informed judgment degree study advances evidence topic beyond existing research strong review includes careful appraisal rigor research design implementation appraisal informed advanced research education current awareness best practices research conduct personal exposure realities research strong reviewer addresses overarching question whether study described adequate fully answer research question produce trustworthy results reviewer also considers carefully whether authors appropriately interpreted results within limitations study expressed discussion section manuscript finally first foremost strong reviewer may comment whether manuscript organized written way effectively communicate appraisal includes adequacy information provided make judgment quality research effectiveness organization writing clearly communicate first read paper way forming judgment strengths weaknesses immediately accepting review invitation contact editor ask removed review nothing offer paper identified conflict interest close working copublishing relationship authors although may difficult set aside concerns english usage manuscript format focus study read consider might offer authors editor review given areas strength avoid guesswork areas background weaker trust editor assigned reviewers cover areas example statistician may expected judge significance research question relation clinical practice existing literature may invaluable appraising statistical approach read paper make notes big questions work step toward addressing important health problem work advance science best knowledge duplicative existing evidence without advancing methods evidence produced trust results reported based design sample procedures analytic approach information adequate make judgment authors provide detail authors appropriately identified studys shortcomings limitations cautious interpreting nature contribution existing literature last consider issues organization writing make general summative notes write draft review clearly identifying areas major concern distinct smaller issues edit thoroughly improve organization remove harsh belittling language delete small points niceties although may schooled otherwise journal like rinah need comment every section paper point general strengths limit comments issues would need see corrected support publication work finally written comments authors write comments editor brief editors read author comments closely need repeat identify clearly fatal flaw research design conduct brings results question point editor suspicions tentative included comments authors known editors include well save copy review rinah reviewers published researchers therefore experienced manuscript peer review many cases rinah peer review process authors review scored rinah editor associate editor reviewers careful thorough occasionally review unnecessarily hurtful case reviewers informed journal guidelines may edited remove unkind language preserving substance comments occasionally review lacks constructive guidance authors reviewers low scores time despite specific suggestions editor may reinvited increasingly attentive workload authors asked make revisions meaningful contributions peer reviewers rinah reviewers long asked refrain pointing typographical grammatical errors making linebyline comments wording instead focus major contentrelated areas noted recent feedback authors remain overwhelmed reviewers comments minutia may obscure important areas concern editing reviews remove linebyline typographical grammatical comments new guidelines reviewers issued fall emphasize goal focusing concisely major issues found httpsmcmanuscriptcentralcomnur instructions forms peer review backbone science public interest professional responsibility work research continuous quality improvement personal level well disciplinary level essential improve reviewer start reading reviewers comments manuscripts reviewed come automatically rinah inquire editor whether could receive ask reviews straightforward useful author check past reviews elements strong reviews noted aspire greater clarity rigor editors often willing provide feedback review series reviews submitting work choose journals strong peer review processes help career publish without thoughtful critique maximize strength citability work perspective publishing field also enriched reviewing variety journals increase exposure best emerging research volunteer review top journals area finally say yes review invitations whenever possible rinah averages three invitations every accepted request review prolongs time reviews editors decision sent authors based manuscript title abstract may something offer much appreciate contribution