Editorial
Susan Tregoning
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, SA
PP: 101 - 101
Article Text
There are three main ways by which a professional journal can review manuscripts. First, a journal can provide authors with an editorial review of the manuscript's content and syntax. Often this review process is employed by journals associated with special interest groups.
The second method uses an established editorial board of nurse experts to examine manuscripts. This process includes a review of the manuscript by one or two of the editorial board members. The conditions under which these reviews are performed can either be blind (anonymity of both author and assessor) or the author is identified to the reviewer.
The manuscript is assessed for its accuracy of content and presentation. The third method, and the one employed by Contemporary Nurse, is double-blind peer review. Anonymous manuscripts are forwarded to two nurses expert in the subject and, (where appropriate) the research methodology, for an anonymous assessment.
For nursing to progress professionally it is crucial it becomes self-regulating especially in the generation of nursing knowledge. Peer review is an integral aspect of self-regulation, and judges standards through critical appraisal by others of equal standing. A hallmark of professionalism is the willingness of members to be scrutinised and, in turn, to scrutinise others for the advancement of the profession as a whole. With the peer review process there are also other responsibilities. Assessments must be objective and free from personal biases.
Reviewers must declare if they do not have the specialised knowledge to assess the validity of a manuscript. Criticism that is given needs to be focused on the content of the manuscript, eliminating any reference which focuses on the integrity of the author. Finally, the reviewers need to be prepared to account for and defend their own stance when providing criticism. By its nature the double-blind peer review process is time consuming. However, the major aim of Contemporary Nurse is to promote the professionalism of nursing, and so we have chosen to employ this method of manuscript review.
The role of the Editorial Board is to co-ordinate the full review process. Manuscripts are forwarded to Editorial Board Members with details of two referees, who are matched with the manuscript subject area and selected from the journal's extensive and expanding data base of nurse experts. Following the review process, recommendations are forwarded to the author. Contemporary Nurse is the first nursing journal in Australia to fully apply the double-blind peer review process in the review of manuscripts.
We are grateful to the numerous nurse experts who have recognised their responsibilities to the development of the profession and given their time to reviewing manuscripts. As the journal's review process relies on the expertise of the profession, we are always keen to expand our data base. If you are considered by your peers to have expertise in a specific field of nursing, Contemporary Nurse would be pleased to receive your curriculum vitae. Please add a list of areas in which you would be prepared to review manuscripts and nominate the research methodology in which you are expert.
eContent Home
