OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Nursing open
Oct, 2016;3 (4): 193-202.

Peer review and the publication process.

Parveen Azam Ali, Roger Watson
Author Information
  1. Parveen Azam Ali: The School of Nursing and Midwifery The University of Sheffield Barber House Annexe 3a Clarkehouse Road Sheffield S10 2LA UK.
  2. Roger Watson: Faculty of Health and Social Care University of Hull Cottingham Road Hull HU6 7RX UK.
PMID: 27708830 DOI: 10.1002/nop2.51

Abstract

AIMS: To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals.
DESIGN: Discussion paper.
METHODS: This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing.
RESULTS: There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post-publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Keywords

Double blind peer review manuscript peer review peer reviewer publication process single blind peer review

References

  1. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Aug;8(8):422-8 [PMID: 8410407]
  2. Nurs Outlook. 2009 Jan-Feb;57(1):18-26 [PMID: 19150263]
  3. BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):4-5 [PMID: 9872861]
  4. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1321-2 [PMID: 2406469]
  5. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006 Jun;34(2):92-9 [PMID: 16751587]
  6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000016 [PMID: 17443635]
  7. Res Nurs Health. 2005 Dec;28(6):444-52 [PMID: 16287058]
  8. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Apr;72(7):1056-63 [PMID: 21388730]
  9. BMC Med. 2014 Jul 30;12:128 [PMID: 25285376]
  10. Acad Med. 2001 Sep;76(9):897-978 [PMID: 11565558]
  11. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Jun 15;72(3):69 [PMID: 18698392]
  12. Ann Behav Med. 2011 Aug;42(1):1-13 [PMID: 21505912]
  13. N Engl J Med. 1989 Sep 21;321(12):827-9 [PMID: 2770813]
  14. Account Res. 2015;22(1):22-40 [PMID: 25275622]
  15. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):139-42 [PMID: 8015126]
  16. J Adv Nurs. 2012 Apr;68(4):718-20 [PMID: 22409583]
  17. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6 [PMID: 12038911]
  18. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(1):75-96 [PMID: 12652170]
  19. BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 29;5(9):e008707 [PMID: 26423855]
  20. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Aug 30;6:63 [PMID: 22969719]
  21. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:79 [PMID: 23087639]
  22. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010 Mar;42(1):58-65 [PMID: 20487187]
  23. Brain. 2000 Sep;123 ( Pt 9):1964-9 [PMID: 10960059]
  24. JAMA. 2001 Sep 12;286(10):1232-4 [PMID: 11559271]
  25. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):234-7 [PMID: 9676666]
  26. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):237-40 [PMID: 9676667]
  27. J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):131-8 [PMID: 18764847]
  28. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011 Jan;23(1):15-22 [PMID: 21208330]
  29. Nurs Ethics. 2010 Nov;17(6):741-8 [PMID: 21097972]
Review Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 20

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0peerreviewprocessblindreviewersvarioustypesacademicpapersinglepublicationAIMS:provideoverviewselectionpurposesignificanceregardassessmentmanagementqualitypublicationsjournalsDESIGN:DiscussionMETHODS:drawsinformationgainedliteratureauthors'knowledgeexperiencecontributingeditorsfieldhealthcareincludingnursingRESULTS:review:doubleopenpost-publicationrolereviewingmanuscriptscontributionscientificcommunityremainsimportantPeerDoublemanuscriptreviewer

Similar Articles

Cited By