Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.

Area of Science:

• Nursing Research
• Scholarly Publishing

Background:

• Peer review quality and reliability are increasingly questioned.
• The impact of blinding in peer review for nursing journals is under-examined.
• Existing research challenges the effectiveness of reviewer training and blinding.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze nurse editors' views on peer review processes.
• To explore perceptions of blinding versus open review in nursing journals.
• To identify characteristics of effective and ineffective peer reviews.

Main Methods:

• Content analysis of an emailed survey data.
• Analysis of responses from 88 nurse editors.
• Qualitative assessment of opinions on peer review standards.

Main Results:

• A majority of nurse editors believe blinding is crucial for objectivity and avoiding repercussions.
• A minority favored open review for enhanced transparency in editorial decisions.
• Excellent reviews offer specific guidance for manuscript improvement, while common flaws include vagueness and irrelevant focus.
• Nearly all editors provide some reviewer guidance.

Conclusions:

• Blinding is considered important by most nurse editors for maintaining review integrity.
• Transparency is a valued aspect of open review by a minority of editors.
• Improving peer review quality requires clear reviewer guidance and potentially integrating critique training into nursing education.