Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP et al. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2010;42(1):58-65
(doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x)
This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. In particular, it examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts. A majority of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and a majority of editors agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale.
(doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x)
This study examined the quality of peer review in three scholarly nursing journals from the perspectives of authors and editors. In particular, it examined the extent to which manuscript reviews provided constructive guidance for authors to further develop their work for publication, and for editors to make informed and sound decisions on the disposition of manuscripts. A majority of authors agreed that peer reviews provided constructive guidance, and a majority of editors agreed that reviews provided adequate rationale.
Comments