Editor-in-Chief. Disclosure of Potential COIs. Objectives. What is Peer Review? Reviewer Boot Camp. Who Reviews Manuscripts? Preview. Martha k.

Transcription

1 Editor-in-Chief Reviewer Boot Camp Sarah A. Martin, MS, CPNP-AC/PC, CCRN Advanced Practice Nurse, Division of Pediatric Surgery Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL Associate Editor, Journal of Pediatric Health Care Martha K. Swartz, PhD, RN, CPNP, FAAN Professor, Yale University, New Haven, CT Editor-In-Chief, Journal of Pediatric Health Care Martha K. Swartz, PhD, APRN, CPNP, FAAN Peer review: - improves the quality of the publication - plays a central role in academic and clinical career development. Disclosure of Potential COIs Objectives Martha k. Swartz As Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, an Elsevier Publication, I hold a contracted position with NAPNAP. 1. Discuss the types of peer review. 2. State research findings on characteristics of nurse peer reviewers. 3. List ten essential facets of a manuscript that a reviewer will critique. 4. Describe the professional and ethical responsibilities associated with being a peer reviewer. 5. Identify resources that can be accessed when preparing a review. What is Peer Review? Who Reviews Manuscripts? Preview A definition from Merriam-Webster s Collegiate Dictionary eleventh edition (2009) of peer review or a process also termed refereeing is, a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field (p. 914). You and a trusted colleague Seek PhD for research Consider a biostatistician PharmD if heavy pharmacology content Spell and language check Manuscript review session at a conference Patient reviews 1

2 Who Reviews Manuscripts? Who Reviews Manuscripts? Editors Journal specific Editor(s) Member of an editorial board Departmental editor Reviewer pool Screening review May elect to reject without review Invites reviewers (consultants, author advocates, journal advocates, referees) Compiles and provides feedback to author(s) with a decision term Who Reviews Manuscripts? Reviewers Key to quality publication Individual has clinical and or research expertise and writing experience On the job training Can be solicited by editorial staff, can be call for reviewers, author recommendation Usually 2 Types of Peer Review Double-blind Single-blind Open Publishing peer review reports Self-selected Post-publication Who are nurse reviewers Mean age 52 years Years in profession 29 91% held doctorate degrees 75% conducting/supervising research Reviewer specifics Mean years as reviewer 11 Reviewed for 3 journals in the past year Typical time to review a paper 5.7 hours Kearney et al. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviews. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40, Kearney et al. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviews. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40,

3 Reasons for becoming a reviewer Contact with an editor (24.1%) Wanted to learn skills or content (16.9%) Advised by a mentor (12.4%) Invited by the journal (11.6%) Responded to an ad or call (10.1%) Professional obligation (5.8%) Career advancement (4.2%) Non-academic (clinical reviewers) should not be intimidated A clinical APRN has much to contribute to the review of a clinical topic which relates to their practice Kearney et al. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviews. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40, Gail Horner, DNP, RNC, PNP Review for content and think of the article as something you would find new or enlightening for your practice as you are a reviewer because you have the expertise Find a way to keep your commitment on your radar as it can easily be put off past the expected timeline for review Terea Giannetta DNP,CPNP,FAANP Reviewer benefits: Understanding the importance of flow in a manuscript and applying it to your own writing Recognizing manuscripts that synthesize content well and model it in your own writing An opportunity to become a better writer and editor for your own work JPHC HEALTH POLICY SECTION EDITOR Karen Duderstadt PhD, RN, CPNP, FAAN Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers Reviewer should provide an honest, critical review of the manuscript focusing on the objectives of the study. Reviewer should maintain confidentiality about existence of and content of manuscript. Review should avoid or disclose any conflicts of interest. Reviewer should not participate in plagiarism. Ethical guidelines for Peer Reviewers (cont.) * Reviewer should accept only those manuscripts in their area of expertise and for which they can provide a timely review. Reviewers responsibility to report any suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism or fraud. Reviews should be written in a collegial, constructive manner which will maintain the authors enthusiasm for the work. *Adapted from Benos, Kirk, & Hall (2003) 3

4 Plagiarism Detection Software ithenticate, CrossCheck Peer reviewers Readers Reviewer Do s (Alspach, 1994) Be prompt Be objective Be specific Be constructive Spot check references Associate Editor Disclosure of Potential COIs Submit the paper in the journal style (e.g., APA for JPHC) Was this paper rejected by another journal? Is a ghost author involved? Use spell-grammar check Was a literature search done? Beware of predatory references Sarah A. Martin, MS,APRN CPNP-AC/PC, CCRN Sarah A. Martin On occasion I am offered an honorarium for review or consultation to a project by a publishing company or professional organization. As Associate Editor I hold a contracted position with NAPNAP for the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, an Elsevier Publication. Read the instructions for authors Follow the instructions! Write about something that interests you, as it will likely be of interest to others Author Guidelines AUTHORS & REVIEWERS SHOULD READ and FOLLOW THEM May be in front pages and on journal website Will describe all facets of manuscript preparation State reference style Describe how paper should be submitted Teri Moser Woo PhD, CPNP-PC, FAANP 4

5 Reviewer Don ts (Alspach, 1994) Focus on mechanics there are copyeditors Rewrite papers Be acrimonious (e.g., avoid comments that may be interpreted as put-downs, condescensions or generalizations) Violate confidentiality Oreo Cookie review: Begin with the positive, offer thoughtful comments on how the authors can improve the paper, end with a positive note. Review information about the journal and the author guidelines prior to beginning review so that you understand the lens you should have as you read the paper, especially with regard to eventual audience. Be sure to allocate an appropriate amount of time for the review. Do Not wait until the day the review is due. A review takes a significant amount of time. Utilize access to Scopus to see what other papers have been published recently on the topic. Content expertise is incredibly important! Grammar, APA format, etc. is easily addressed through the editorial process. Focus on accuracy of content errors in content are very difficult to address if missed in review. Eileen K. Fry-Bowers, PhD, JD, RN, CPNP Editorial Advisory Board Member Be sure to review the author guidelines to ensure that your manuscript is a good fit for JPHC. It is important to include nursing practice implications for APRNs who care for children. Essential Facets of the Review Appropriate topic/style Originality The title Content (organization, accuracy, and completeness) Grammar Tables and figures Research appraisal checklist (RAC) for research Mikki Meadows-Oliver, PhD, RN, PNP Essential Facets of the Review Topic, Style, Originality, Title Is the article appropriate for the journal readership? Style formality appropriate for the journal? Topic timely? Last time related topical published in the journal? Is this a new topic or new slant on an old topic? Unique or interesting perspective? Reflect the content? Title At the word limit suggested in author guidelines? Keywords enable the paper to be reported when search done? Clear and succinct? Essential Facets of the Review Content (organization, accuracy, and completeness) Is the content understandable? Is there a logical flow? Are subheadings appropriate and in the realm of the journal s style? Is the information presented accurate? Author citations reflective of content in the original source? Do percentages equal 100%? Depth appropriate for the scope? 5

6 Essential Facets of the Review Grammar Are there glaring grammar, spelling or punctuation errors? Is the tense appropriate and consistent? Tables & Figures Are there discrepancies between the text and the tables? Is there information overlap? Can people be identified in the figures? Have permissions been obtained? Look professional? Editorial Advisory Board Member Medical librarians offer a wealth help throughout the continuum of your writing journey. They can assist before manuscript submission or after you receive reviewer comments. They can help to: locate journals that match the topic you are writing to avoid immediate manuscript rejection find and help interpret author guidelines to circumvent potential rewrites create the citation style according to the journal s requirements using a citation manager to get it right the first time edit your citation style if there are reviewer comments about citations not in correct format Touch base with your librarian with any publication questions about your manuscript. Janene Batten MLS, B.Ed Review content for citation style, accuracy, and appropriate attribution Too many? Too few? Too old? Text and reference list consistent? Google for style resources Available computer programs Copy editor will edit style and may or may not verify accuracy Jo Ann Serota, DNP, CPNP, FAANP, IBCLC Reviewer Tips Use the template for case study submissions suggested by the Journal. Be sure your references are current (less than 5 years from publication) and APA correct. What is Predatory Publishing? definition from Wikipedia, In academic publishing, predatory open access publishing is an exploitative openaccess publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). How many predatory journals? All Predatory Titles >1800 journals >500,000+ articles About ¾ of authors from Asia and Africa Nursing (Oermann et al., 2016) circa 2011, most inaugurated in journals Many only publish 1 or 2 volumes and cease or publish few articles in subsequent volumes 75 publishers (majority from India) 6

7 How do you tell the difference? Who is the editor? Editorial board? Can t find evidence of Editor s standing in the discipline No contact info Journal process for assuring quality of content? Promise of rapid review (quality takes time) Mystification of who or what the manuscript review process is How do you tell the difference? Does the journal have sound business and publishing practices? Journal is not a member of COPE, not listed in the INANE/NA&E list, Cabell s directory, no author info about APC, IF not verifiable Websites Poorly designed with misspelled words common Bogus impact metric-the index Copernicus Value Lack of clear ethical policies Oermann & Wilmes (2005) 756 references analyzed 217 (28.4%) contained errors Author name (57) Title of article/book/chapter (44) Volume number (23) Journal title (19) -Case Study Donna Hallas, PhD, PNP-BC, CPNP, PMHS, FAAN Primary Care Case Studies Research Methods Pay attention to Details Is the Case Presentation Complete? Can the reader visualize the child/adolescent from the description? Is the case challenging and interesting? Are the Differential Diagnoses reasonable and reflective of the case presentation? -Case Study Research Review Does the manuscript you are reviewing or writing answer these questions: Why is this case important to NPs in clinical practice? Is the Work-up Complete? Does the treatment plan follow evidence-based guidelines or if not available, is it consistent with the best available clinical evidence? Donna Hallas, PhD, PNP-BC, CPNP, PMHS, FAAN Primary Care Case Studies Research Methods 7

8 Research Review Literature review Adequate, synopsis of known and unknown Problem and purpose Clear statement of problem and purpose Methods Appropriate for the study, sample appropriate and clearly described Research Review Statistical analysis Appropriate analysis for data Conclusions Data support the stated conclusions Discussion Adequate, relate findings to previous work, implications for practice stated A SAM Review Accept invitation Read the submission (attempting to go green) SLEEP on it A day or 2 later read and start WORD file with comments Separate read of tables and figures Separate read of references Will check references for accuracy if obvious errors Literature search PRN Track changes for micro or heavy editing Compile review document Proof final document and submit Be Helpful! Read the manuscript in it s entirety. On the subsequent reads, provide suggestions to the authors on how to overcome the identified shortcomings. Explain what is going on in your thinking and provide alternative approaches. Maureen A. Madden, MSN, CPNP-AC Feedback (Rs) 50-60% rejection rate Flat out rejection usually because you submitted to the wrong journal 4Rs of Revising your Manuscript (Pierson, 2008) Reading/Reflecting/ Rewriting/Responding Note the good points in the manuscript, not just the areas that need to be addressed. This is an innovative study Keep comments and punctuation neutral. Please include limitations of the study. is a neutral statement. Where are your limitations!? These must be included!!! is not neutral. Regena Spratling, PhD, RN, APRN, CPNP 8

9 Feedback from Reviewers Journal specific template May use WORD function track changes List of suggest changes page 4 line 22 Some to author and additional confidential comments to editor Feedback from Reviewers General categories: minor revision (the revised paper may be reviewed by the editor only and may or may not be accepted), major revision (revision sent back to reviewers and may or may not be accepted), reject (50-60% of submissions to nursing titles, accept Editor(s) will make final determination Editorial Advisory Board Feedback to Authors + Reviewers Civility rules the day! Include positive comments as well as feedback on areas that need work. Provide suggestions or examples to improve the manuscript From editor Reviewer comments may be edited Letter sent through electronic editing system Electronic editorial systems automatically shares comments and decisions with reviewers Mary Chesney PhD, APRN, CPNP, FAANP, FAAN Revision and Resubmission Reviewer Acknowledgement Goal to make manuscript the best it can be, expect to revise Respond to feedback in writing if not in agreement Copy comments and respond with different font/color Table Timely resubmission Read out loud before resubmitting Double check all references 9

10 Wanted: JPHC Manuscript Reviewers Would you like to help influence, maintain, and improve the already outstanding quality and reputation of the JPHC? Send an with your curriculum vitae to Marty Swartz, Editor-in-Chief at Speaker Contact Information Sarah A. Martin Marty Swartz Resources Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Flowcharts. Available at Elsevier Reviewers Home, an online comprehensive resource for reviewers, INANE International Academy of Nurse Editors, an organization of Nurse Editors, see web site for editing resources and annual conference information, International Council of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, Medical Library Association, in collaboration with members of the Nursing and Allied Health Resource Section, Nurse Author & Editor, an online journal. Available at The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL). APA formatting and style guide. Available at World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Available at Alspach, J.G. (2004). The no. 1 secret to getting published. Critical Care Nurse, 24(6), Alspach, J.G. (2017). Preparing a paper for publication: Help us help you make it happen. Critical Care Nurse, 36(3), doi: /ccn Alspach, J.G. (1994). What journal editors would like from reviewers. Critical Care Nurse, 14(6), American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baggs, J.G., Broome, M.E., Dougherty, M.C., Freda, M.C., & Kearney, M.H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: the preference of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64, Barron, J.P. (2006). The uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals recommended by the international committee of medical editor journals. Chest, 129, Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., & Hall, J.E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(2), Cochran, A. (2017). Turning a critical eye on reference lists. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from Edmunds, M.W. (2018). The future of peer review, The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 14(1), A23. Etkin, A., & Fullerton, J. (2017). Predatory publishing. International Journal of Childbirth, 7(3), doi: / Fondiller, S. H. (1992). The Writer s Workbook. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Freda, M.C., & Nicoll, L.H. (2015). The Editor s Handbook, (2 nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. Freda, M.C., Kearney, M.H., Baggs, J.G., Broome, M.E., & Dougherty, M. (2009). Peer reviewer training and editor support: Results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(2), Froman, R.D. (2008). Hitting the bull s eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, Heinrich, K.T. (2008). A Nurse s Guide to Presenting and Publishing: Dare to Share. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Kearney, M. (2015). Which journal will take the best care of my paper? Research in Nursing and Health, 38, Kearney, M.H., Baggs, J.G., Broome, M.E., Dougherty, M.C., & Freda, M.C. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40, Kearney, M., & Freda, M. C. (2005). Nurse editors views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing and Health, 27(6), 1-9. Lucey, B. (2013). Peer review: How to get it right-10 tips. The Guardian. Retrieved from tips-research-paper Martin, S.A. (2010). Accept or Reject? Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 23, Morton, P.G. (2013). Insights about the manuscript review process. Nurse Author & Editor, 23(3), 1-4. National Institutes of Health (November 3, 2017). Statement on article publication resulting from NIH funded research. Retrieved from Oermann, M.H., Conklin, J.L., Nicoll, L.H., Chinn, P.L. Ashton, K.S., Edie, A.H., Amarasekara, S., & Budinger, S.C. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(6), doi: /jnu Oermann, M.H., & Wilmes, N.A. (2005). How accurate are references in nursing journals? Nurse Author & Editor, 15(4), 1-4. Pierson, C. (2008). The 4 R s of revising your manuscript: Reading, reflecting, rewriting and responding. Nurse Author & Editor Newsletter. Retrieved from 10