Peer review and the publication process

Abstract

AimsTo 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.DesignDiscussion paper.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThere 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.

Emerging nursing scholars guide to peer reviewing an academic manuscript

“…You should also be clear what type of review process the journal operates, as this can vary (Ali & Watson, 2016). Most nursing journals use double-blind peer review whereby the author and the reviewer remain unknown to each other during the review process.…”

Peer review in the development of academic articles: Experiences of Finnish authors in the educational sciences

“…It is very difficult to measure the effectiveness of PR, although the key strengths and shortcomings of the PR process are well known (Hernandez, 2017;Jefferson, Wager, & Davidoff, 2002;Majumber, 2016;Ware, 2011). One of the biggest disappointments is that it is not effective in preventing fraudulent cases from being published as valid science (Azam Ali & Watson, 2016;Ho et al, 2013;Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang, & Cronin, 2013).…”

Editorial

“…I rarely turn down an opportunity to be videoed. I think that reviewing is important and, in this issue, Dr Parveen Ali from the University of Sheffield and I consider the peer review system and the variations that exist (Ali & Watson, ). However, I had not previously considered it in quite the way I was asked above.…”

“…I also value the review process. It is far from perfect but, compared with the alternatives – and there are some (Ali & Watson, ) – it is probably the best system we have. I know that, as well as spotting some excellent manuscripts and giving them my full support, I have occasionally spotted gross methodological errors, which would have been bad for the author and the journal had they got into print.…”