12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nursing journal peer reviewers (N = 1,675) completed a 69-item online survey that assessed their views on manuscripts' contributions to nursing, priorities in writing reviews, use of journal impact factor, and other areas related to indicators of quality. They reported using contribution to knowledge or research evidence, topic of current interest, and newly emerging area as indicators of a manuscript's contribution to nursing. In writing their reviews, research rigor and clinical relevance of the manuscript were high priorities. Those familiar with the concept of impact factor were significantly more often not nurses; not United States residents; involved in research; and most often reviewed for journals that published only research or a scholarly mix of research, reviews, policy, and theory. When judging a paper's contribution, nursing journal peer reviewers weigh both research and clinical interests. Most reviewers do not use impact factors and place clinical considerations ahead of impact factors.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          West J Nurs Res
          Western journal of nursing research
          SAGE Publications
          1552-8456
          0193-9459
          Jun 2011
          : 33
          : 4
          Affiliations
          [1 ] University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, NC, USA. m_dougherty@unc.edu
          Article
          0193945910385715
          10.1177/0193945910385715
          21078915
          bcfabdce-2d76-4f71-9496-a04022c1f526
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article