护理研究中稿件评审的质量。

Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.

作者信息

Henly Susan J, Dougherty Molly C

机构信息

University of Minnesota, School of Nursing, 5-140 WDH, 308 Harvard St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

出版信息

Nurs Outlook. 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006.

DOI:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.05.006

PMID:19150263

Abstract

Dissemination of research findings through publication of results in peer reviewed journals is the gold standard in nursing science. Yet, little is known about quality of manuscript reviews or factors associated with review quality. The purpose of this project was to refine a methodology for assessing quality of reviews and then to evaluate review quality. We created a continuous quality improvement process to assess the narrative portion of 464 reviews of 203 manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research from August 2006-July 2007. The General Assessment of Reviews of Nursing Research (GARNR) was developed to measure quality. Inter-rater reliability of the average of 2 raters' scores was satisfactory for most items and the scales. Quality was better for technical (design and methods) rather than background (theory and review of literature) aspects of a manuscript. Based on assessment of global quality, 18.9% of the reviews were deemed poor or inadequate. On average, statistical reviews were rated more highly than regular reviews, and reviewers from research intensive institutions wrote higher quality reviews than others. Recommendations for monitoring quality in the review process and guidelines for preparation of the review narrative to improve quality are made.

摘要

通过在同行评审期刊上发表研究结果来传播研究发现是护理科学的黄金标准。然而，对于稿件评审的质量或与评审质量相关的因素却知之甚少。本项目的目的是完善一种评估评审质量的方法，然后对评审质量进行评估。我们创建了一个持续质量改进过程，以评估2006年8月至2007年7月提交给《护理研究》的203篇稿件的464份评审意见中的叙述部分。开发了护理研究评审综合评估（GARNR）来衡量质量。对于大多数项目和量表，两名评分者分数的平均值的评分者间信度令人满意。稿件的技术（设计和方法）方面的质量优于背景（理论和文献综述）方面。根据整体质量评估，18.9%的评审意见被认为较差或不充分。平均而言，统计评审的评分高于常规评审，来自研究密集型机构的评审者撰写的评审意见质量高于其他评审者。本文提出了在评审过程中监测质量的建议以及撰写评审叙述以提高质量的指南。