OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience

Peer Reviewer Guidelines for the Journal of Trauma Nursing.

Abstract

No abstract text available.

References

1. Baxt W. G., Waeckerle J. F., Berlin J. A., & Callaham M. L. (1998). Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 32(3 Pt 1), 310���317. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70006-x [DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70006-x]
2. Chauvin A., Ravaud P., Baron G., Barnes C., & Boutron I. (2015). The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3 [DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3]
3. Clase C. M., Dicks E., Holden R., Sood M. M., Levin A., Kalantar-Zadeh K., Moore L. W., Bartlett S. J., Bello A. K., Bohm C., Bridgewater D., Bouchard J., Burger D., Carrero J. J., Donald M., Elliott M., Goldenberg M. J., Jardine M., Lam N. N., & Hartwig S. (2022). Can peer review be kinder? Supportive peer review: A re-commitment to kindness and a call to action. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 9, 20543581221080327. https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581221080327 [DOI: 10.1177/20543581221080327]
4. Cobo E., Cort��s J., Ribera J. M., Cardellach F., Selva-O���Callaghan A., Kostov B., Garc��a L., Cirugeda L., Altman D. G., Gonz��lez J. A., S��nchez J. A., Miras F., Urrutia A., Fonollosa V., Rey-Joly C., & Vilardell M. (2011). Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: Masked randomised trial. BMJ, 343(nov22 2), d6783. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6783 [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6783]
5. Haines S. T., Baker W. L., & DiDomenico R. J. (2017). Improving peer review: What journals can do. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(24), 2086���2089. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp170188 [DOI: 10.2146/ajhp170188]
6. Lanier W. L. (2021). Dealing with inappropriate-, low-quality-, and other forms of challenging peer review, including hostile referees and inflammatory or confusing critiques: Prevention and treatment. Accountability in Research, 28(3), 162���185. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1815010 [DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1815010]
7. Lyons-Warren A. M., Aamodt W. W., Pieper K. M., & Strowd R. E. (2024). A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 9(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-024-00143-x [DOI: 10.1186/s41073-024-00143-x]
8. Mali��ki M., & Mehmani B. (2024). Structured peer review: Pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ, 12, e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514 [DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17514]
9. Mikhail J. N. (2024). Demystifying Reporting Guidelines. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 31(1), 3���6. https://doi.org/10.1097/jtn.0000000000000760 [DOI: 10.1097/jtn.0000000000000760]
10. Weaver M. L., Sundland R., Adams A. M., Faria I., Feldman H. A., Gudmundsdottir H., Marmor H., Miles V., Ochoa B., Ruff S. M., Tonelli C., Altieri M. S., Cannada L., Dewan K., Etkin Y., Marmor R., Plichta J. K., Reyna C., Tatebe L., & Hicks C. W. (2022). The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Seminars in Vascular Surgery, 35(4), 470���478. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002 [DOI: 10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002]