Kearney Margaret H, Baggs Judith G, Broome Marion E, Dougherty Molly C, Freda Margaret C
University of Rochester School of Nursing, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2008;40(4):395-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x.
To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role.
Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study.
A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals.
Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from the US, and 90% were nurses. The majority were doctorally prepared academics who were involved in research. They reported spending an average of 5 hours on each critique and completed an average of 7-8 reviews per year. The most common reason reported for becoming involved was personal contact with an editor. Lack of time because of competing work commitments was the most commonly cited barrier to reviewing and negative aspect of the role. The most common positive aspect was keeping up to date with the field.
Nursing journal peer reviewers express rewards and challenges similar to those reported elsewhere for biomedical journal reviewers. Based on these findings, editors might consider new approaches to recruiting and supporting reviewers, and potential reviewers might gain insight into the role. Support of these distinguished scholars in this important role is critical to sustain the quality of scholarship that informs nursing practice, education, and research.
Clinicians, researchers, and educators who rely on the quality of the articles published in nursing journals can learn from this survey about the background and experiences of those who protect that quality by providing expert feedback to authors and editors.
描述护理期刊审稿人的专业背景、审稿经验、时间投入以及他们对自身角色的看法。
探索性描述性横断面研究。
52种护理期刊的编辑邀请了1675名护理期刊审稿人参与一项包含固定选项和开放式问题的69题网络调查问卷。
参与者来自44个国家，74%来自美国，90%为护士。大多数是参与研究的拥有博士学位的学者。他们报告称平均每次审稿花费5小时，每年平均完成7 - 8次审稿。参与审稿最常见的原因是与编辑的个人联系。因工作任务冲突而缺乏时间是审稿最常被提及的障碍以及该角色的负面因素。最常见的积极方面是紧跟该领域的前沿。
护理期刊同行审稿人所表达的收获和挑战与其他地方报道的生物医学期刊审稿人相似。基于这些发现，编辑们可能会考虑招募和支持审稿人的新方法，潜在的审稿人可能会深入了解该角色。支持这些杰出学者担任这一重要角色对于维持为护理实践、教育和研究提供信息的学术质量至关重要。
依赖护理期刊发表文章质量的临床医生、研究人员和教育工作者可以从这项调查中了解那些通过向作者和编辑提供专家反馈来保障文章质量的人的背景和经历。
