The most important thing I have learned is that peer review is not a simple task. Completing a constructive, insightful review takes time and consideration.
I believe that, as scholars, we have an ethical obligation to advance the science of nursing education by participating in the process of review. All of us - authors, reviewers, editorial boards, and editors - have a responsibility to ensure quality through the peer review process and the dissemination of scholarship. Likewise, we must encourage innovation and debate in the process.
What does it mean when we say a manuscript was peer reviewed? There seems to be the belief that if a manuscript was peer reviewed, it is worthy science, but, as argued by Anderson (2014), there is no single formula or ideal peer review process. There are, however, certain standards for reviews that should be considered, with authors, reviewers, editors, and readers each performing a critical role.
Peer review is integral to the science of nursing education, and all manuscripts can be improved with a high quality, substantive review. But a discussion about the role of the peer reviewer is warranted. Is the role of the reviewer to teach, or is it simply to critique? Can we find a balance?
For many educators, writing for publication is a daunting task, and even seasoned authors find it disheartening and demoralizing to receive a harsh, negative review that offers little direction for improvement of the manuscript. Often those who receive such reviews become discouraged and choose not to resubmit - then the manuscript will never be published, and the scholarship of the discipline will suffer. At the other extreme are the one-sentence, overly positive reviews that provide no feedback to the author. While they may be less hurtful and the manuscript may get published, they do not encourage scholarly discourse. Reviews that are not constructive, whether they are overly harsh or overly positive, also create additional work for the editor.
It is important to point out that reviewers play a significant role in maintaining the quality and ethical integrity of the science. Unfortunately, scientific misconduct is a reality, with the number of retractions increasing annually. In a recent article, Fierz et al. (2014) concluded that scientific misconduct is a multilevel phenomenon and interventions need to target every level. The process starts with authors and their responsibility for practicing ethical research. In partnership with the editor, reviewers must challenge areas of concern in a manuscript, whether they are theoretical or methodological or conclusions that are unwarranted.
Aside from the multiple descriptions of peer review found in the literature, it is important for authors and reviewers to understand the goals and intent of the journal, as well as its benchmarks and standards for review. Nursing Education Perspectives highlights its criteria online at http://www.nln.org/nlnjournal/peerreviewpanel.htm, and we take pride in the product that is created. Our readers trust that the role that each of us plays has contributed to advancing the science of nursing education.
Submitting our ideas and research to peer review is integral to what we do as scholars, and I believe that the process works. However, it is not flawless and there is room for improvement. Peer review is a skill that can be developed. Mentoring of the next generation of authors and reviewers is a responsibility we have to assume more rigorously if we want to contribute to best practices in nursing education. As faculty, we have a responsibility to provide guidance and practice for students on writing useful, civil, respectful critiques. Creating a culture of scholarly exchange is something that needs to be supported at every level of nursing education. Reviewing a manuscript is a worthy commitment of time for all scholars, and without it we are doing the science a disservice.
References