Experience, time investment, and motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers

Margaret H. Kearney, Judith Baggs, Marion E. Broome, Molly C. Dougherty, Margaret C. Freda

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    24 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions: 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. Clinical Relevance: 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.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)395-400
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Nursing Scholarship
    Volume40
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Dec 2008

    Fingerprint

    Nursing
    Nursing Education Research
    Time Perception
    Reward
    Internet
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Nurses
    Research Personnel
    Research
    Surveys and Questionnaires

    Keywords

    • Biomedical publication
    • Journalology
    • Nursing
    • Peer review

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Nursing(all)

    Cite this

    Experience, time investment, and motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers. / Kearney, Margaret H.; Baggs, Judith; Broome, Marion E.; Dougherty, Molly C.; Freda, Margaret C.

    In: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 40, No. 4, 12.2008, p. 395-400.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Kearney, Margaret H. ; Baggs, Judith ; Broome, Marion E. ; Dougherty, Molly C. ; Freda, Margaret C. / Experience, time investment, and motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers. In: Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2008 ; Vol. 40, No. 4. pp. 395-400.
    @article{d737a691b6764726a1aa6a3295d71a05,
    title = "Experience, time investment, and motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers",
    abstract = "Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions: 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. Clinical Relevance: 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.",
    keywords = "Biomedical publication, Journalology, Nursing, Peer review",
    author = "Kearney, {Margaret H.} and Judith Baggs and Broome, {Marion E.} and Dougherty, {Molly C.} and Freda, {Margaret C.}",
    year = "2008",
    month = "12",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "40",
    pages = "395--400",
    journal = "Journal of Nursing Scholarship",
    issn = "1527-6546",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Experience, time investment, and motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers

    AU - Kearney, Margaret H.

    AU - Baggs, Judith

    AU - Broome, Marion E.

    AU - Dougherty, Molly C.

    AU - Freda, Margaret C.

    PY - 2008/12

    Y1 - 2008/12

    N2 - Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions: 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. Clinical Relevance: 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.

    AB - Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions: 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. Clinical Relevance: 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.

    KW - Biomedical publication

    KW - Journalology

    KW - Nursing

    KW - Peer review

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54749086738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54749086738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 40

    SP - 395

    EP - 400

    JO - Journal of Nursing Scholarship

    JF - Journal of Nursing Scholarship

    SN - 1527-6546

    IS - 4

    ER -