PEER REVIEWER TRAINING AND EDITOR SUPPORT: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF NURSING PEER REVIEWERS
PEER REVIEWER TRAINING AND EDITOR SUPPORT: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF NURSING PEER REVIEWERS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Dougherty, Molly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Freda, Margaret Comerford;Kearney, Margaret H.;Dougherty, Molly
主题：护理期刊依赖于同行审稿人在研究和临床实践方面的专业知识。尽管对生物医学期刊的同行审稿人进行了一些研究，但到目前为止，我们对护理期刊审稿人的了解很少。方法：对41种专业护理期刊的1675名审稿人进行问卷调查，询问审稿人69个问题，内容涉及专业护理期刊的审稿经验。本文检查了他们对调查问题的回答，这些问题是关于成为审稿人的培训以及他们从编辑那里得到的支持。结果：结果显示，65%的人希望接受正式培训，尽管只有约30%的人接受了定向培训、手册、实践回顾或研讨会等形式的培训。对于大多数同行审稿人来说，在他们对这个过程感到满意之前，需要进行一到五次审稿，尽管有些人评论说，“我仍然质疑我的审稿”和“花了几年时间”。在这个样本中，31%的人表示从编辑那里得到了关于他们的评论的反馈，但87%的人希望得到反馈。大多数人（80%）希望看到他们审稿的其他评论，尽管只有45%的人真正看到了。审稿人报告说，编辑通过提供反馈、展示对他们的努力的赞赏、指导和可用性对他们很有帮助。结论：我们从这项研究中得出结论，许多审稿人对培训和支持的需求没有得到满足，审稿人和护理编辑都可以从更好地了解这一过程中获益。编辑可以考虑制定指导、培训和支持计划，例如对评审的反馈，提供其他评审，以及对手稿最终处理的反馈。审稿人应该考虑与编辑讨论这些问题，让他们知道他们对反馈和培训的需求。干预研究，以检查这些程序对评论者满意度的影响，最终可以加强护理文献。
Topic: Nursing journals depend on the services of peer reviewers for their expertise in research and clinical practice. Although some research has been done with peer reviewers of biomedical journals, to date, our knowledge about reviewers of nursing journals is minimal. Methods: In this international survey of 1,675 reviewers for 41 nursing journals, reviewers were asked 69 questions about their experiences reviewing for professional nursing journals. This article examines their answers to the survey questions about training to become reviewers and the support they receive from editors. Results: Results showed that 65% wanted formal training, although only about 30% received such training in the form of orientation, manuals, practice reviews, or workshops. For most peer reviewers, it took one to five reviews before they felt comfortable with the process, although some commented that, "I still question my reviews" and "It took a few years." In this sample, 31% reported getting feedback from editors about their reviews, but 87% wanted feedback. Most (80%) wanted to see the other reviews of the manuscripts they reviewed, although only about 45% actually saw them. Reviewers reported that the editor had been helpful to them by providing feedback, demonstrating appreciation of their efforts, mentoring, and being available. Conclusions: We concluded from this research that many reviewers' needs for training and support are not being met and that both reviewers and nursing editors could profit from a better understanding of the process. Editors could consider instituting programs of orientation, training, and support such as feedback on reviews, making other reviews available, and feedback on final disposition of manuscripts. Reviewers should consider discussing these issues with editors to make their needs for feedback and training known. Intervention studies to examine the effects of such programs on reviewer satisfaction could ultimately strengthen the nursing literature.