Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
www.nursingoutlook.org
From the Editor
Peer reviewers: “What are they thinking?” 1. Clear and concise explanations of what the author is trying to convey in the beginning
Dr. Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN
As I have mentioned on several occasions, the publishing world is in constant flux and new practices evolve all the time. Many of these practices are contributing to making knowledge more accessible in a more timely fashion. Some are designed to support authors and editors, while others focus on reviewers. Reviewers are the backbone of nursing’s scholarly pursuits. It is only though their generous donation of hours of their time and expertise to read, critique and develop a constructive approach to providing feedback that authors can disseminate their best work. Each of us works very hard when we write a manuscript about a topic we are passionate about and which we really believe must be made available to others as soon as possible. As ‘soon as possible’ has become a shorter and shorter time frame and it can sometimes appear to authors that reviewers just do not understand and even unreasonable. As an author myself I have found myself frustrated by comments I perceived to be overly critical, or vague, or even inaccurate. Yet in over 100 refereed papers published over 25 years, I have also found that every manuscript I revised was much stronger based on the reviews I received. As an editor it is my responsibility to read every review for every manuscript and make a decision about whether to reject, ask for revisions or accept a manuscript. Here I share some of my impressions of ‘what reviewers are thinking’ based on years of reading their reviews.
In 2010, one estimate of the number of published papers was set at 50 million (Jinha, 2010), and MEDLINE estimates that the PubMed database adds papers at the rate of 1/minute. Clearly the quantity of scholarly publications has exceeded anyone’s ability to read every paper published in one’s field. Therefore, in order to stay current most of us skim the Table of Contents in a journal first to see what titles catch our attention. If one title does grab our attention the next step is to read the abstract. This would imply that authors should really strive to actively engage the reader with their titles and abstracts. In fact, many authors attempt to do this by developing very long titles with colons after the first few words. Interestingly, the words after the colon often contain a statement which encapsulates the major premise or findings. This can actually be counterproductive - readers won’t spend time trying to figure out what the title actually means. Unfortunately the abstract, on the other hand, is often given little thought. An abstract doesn’t have to be long- just clear, concise and logically consistent. In fact, the first 2-3 sentences can be used to build strong statement of significance, followed by 2-3 sentences that describe procedures used to gather the evidence to build the premise of the paper and then 3-6 more sentences that identify the authors’ recommendations. These need to be clear recommendations that will make an impact on future research, practice or policy.
2. Cogent rationale for why this manuscript is important to the field AND why the readers of this particular journal would be interested While the ‘evidence’ about the attention span of adults is quite controversial and nonexistent (ie. for an interesting read you can compare the empirical literature with website chats), most of us would admit ours has decreased somewhat over time. Reviewers (and later
234
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
readers) will agree to read your manuscript if the paper contains information they can use to solve a challenge they are dealing with. These challenges can include innovative solutions, new evidence on a topic, or a new topic being introduced in academic or health care settings that they feel they should know about. Being an expert in an area is no longer enough of a reason for a reviewer to give up 3-4 hours of their time to provide authors with a critique-unless the reviewer thinks this information will substantially add to what they already know and to the field. Yet authors often assume just because they have chosen to study something of interest to them that it will be of interest to many. For reviewers and readers of journals like Nursing Outlook (NO) the idea proposed, findings reported and policy changes suggested must address a critical gap or propose a new innovative approach to an old problem. And the significance must be clear enough to the reader in just a few seconds that the reviewer is enticed to read more. And when a reviewer agrees to accept an invitation to review, they often take the time to read the abstract only. So make every word count. For every manuscript submitted to NO that is sent to reviewers I have found I have to ask 3 reviewers to get one to complete their review. I try to catch and reject without review those manuscripts I know are not a good fit with the journal. At least 30 percent of the time, I will invite 6-8 and no reviewer will agree to review. Yet for manuscripts that address a timely topic, or present an original approach to thinking about old problems, or are well written about topics debated in the field currently, all 4 reviewers initially asked will respond and submit a review. Usually they don’t all agree on the disposition, of course! But they do provide very thoughtful suggestions and pose important questions the authors must think about for the paper to make an impact on the field. It doesn’t mean there is anything inherently wrong with the manuscript that isn’t of interest to our reviewers- it may just be very appropriate for another audience.
3. Clear, concise and thorough description of evidence to support premises in manuscript and/or methods used Often authors are confused when reviewers ask for more detail about methods in the case of empirical studies, or critique their logic when presenting an innovative approach to a challenge. The authors assume the detail asked for will add length to the paper, which is almost always already too long but not well organized. My standard suggestion is that the author would be much better off analyzing closely how they explained what they did and what the reviewers are asking. One common example is measurement strategies used. For instance, a survey, interview or questionnaire and the associated psychometrics (if appropriate) are not described thoroughly. Instead authors often write about the procedures they took and
not the substance of the survey. It is not possible to weigh the validity of the findings if that psychometric information is not provided. However, one does not need to take an entire page to describe the survey tool! Rather, use concise, clear language to explain what the construct measured was, what the conceptual categories are (i.e., subscales), how many overall items, response format, potential scoring range, and psychometrics will be important. This can actually be done is a couple of paragraphs.
4. A cogent, meaningful and influential discussion section should not be left to readers’ imaginations The discussion is the one place creativity and big picture thinking is critical on the part of the authors. And I think it is the hardest part of a manuscript to write for just that reason. For empirical studies many authors chose to just reiterate the findings when it is here that they have the opportunity to place their findings in the context of existing knowledge, to shape the thinking of others about the future, whether next studies or practice implications, and to speculate about how this manuscript could and should influence policy. It is in the discussion where it is often clear whether this manuscript is a good fit for NO.
Conclusion In summary, the service of reviewers are truly what stands between ‘just another paper’ and a paper that can shape the way nurses at all levels and in all roles think about their work, the meaning of what we do for people and whether or not our thinking can influence solutions. Senior scholars in our field who publish papers in NO continue to amaze me with their approach to revisions. They see the comments and critiques of reviewers as a gift that enables them to re-think their thinking and analysis of issues in the paper. With input they craft their message in a way that it will make a difference- not just be another publication on a C.V. And I will always be grateful to those reviewers who take their stewardship service very seriously and provide authors with the opportunity to really add to what we know. This donation of time is a gift every author should take very seriously. It is through the service of excellent reviewers and reflective authors that scholars are ‘born’ and scholarship shapes the field.
reference
Jinha, A. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258e263.
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
Author Description Marion E. Broome is the Editor-in-Chief of Nursing Outlook.
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN Corresponding author: Dr. Marion E. Broome Dean and Professor, Vice Chancellor for Nursing Affairs Duke University School of Nursing
235
Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, DUHS School of Nursing Duke University DUMC 3322, 307 Trent Dr. Durham, NC 27710. E-mail address: [email protected]
0029-6554/$ e see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.04.005
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
www.nursingoutlook.org
From the Editor
Peer reviewers: “What are they thinking?” 1. Clear and concise explanations of what the author is trying to convey in the beginning
Dr. Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN
As I have mentioned on several occasions, the publishing world is in constant flux and new practices evolve all the time. Many of these practices are contributing to making knowledge more accessible in a more timely fashion. Some are designed to support authors and editors, while others focus on reviewers. Reviewers are the backbone of nursing’s scholarly pursuits. It is only though their generous donation of hours of their time and expertise to read, critique and develop a constructive approach to providing feedback that authors can disseminate their best work. Each of us works very hard when we write a manuscript about a topic we are passionate about and which we really believe must be made available to others as soon as possible. As ‘soon as possible’ has become a shorter and shorter time frame and it can sometimes appear to authors that reviewers just do not understand and even unreasonable. As an author myself I have found myself frustrated by comments I perceived to be overly critical, or vague, or even inaccurate. Yet in over 100 refereed papers published over 25 years, I have also found that every manuscript I revised was much stronger based on the reviews I received. As an editor it is my responsibility to read every review for every manuscript and make a decision about whether to reject, ask for revisions or accept a manuscript. Here I share some of my impressions of ‘what reviewers are thinking’ based on years of reading their reviews.
In 2010, one estimate of the number of published papers was set at 50 million (Jinha, 2010), and MEDLINE estimates that the PubMed database adds papers at the rate of 1/minute. Clearly the quantity of scholarly publications has exceeded anyone’s ability to read every paper published in one’s field. Therefore, in order to stay current most of us skim the Table of Contents in a journal first to see what titles catch our attention. If one title does grab our attention the next step is to read the abstract. This would imply that authors should really strive to actively engage the reader with their titles and abstracts. In fact, many authors attempt to do this by developing very long titles with colons after the first few words. Interestingly, the words after the colon often contain a statement which encapsulates the major premise or findings. This can actually be counterproductive - readers won’t spend time trying to figure out what the title actually means. Unfortunately the abstract, on the other hand, is often given little thought. An abstract doesn’t have to be long- just clear, concise and logically consistent. In fact, the first 2-3 sentences can be used to build strong statement of significance, followed by 2-3 sentences that describe procedures used to gather the evidence to build the premise of the paper and then 3-6 more sentences that identify the authors’ recommendations. These need to be clear recommendations that will make an impact on future research, practice or policy.
2. Cogent rationale for why this manuscript is important to the field AND why the readers of this particular journal would be interested While the ‘evidence’ about the attention span of adults is quite controversial and nonexistent (ie. for an interesting read you can compare the empirical literature with website chats), most of us would admit ours has decreased somewhat over time. Reviewers (and later
234
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
readers) will agree to read your manuscript if the paper contains information they can use to solve a challenge they are dealing with. These challenges can include innovative solutions, new evidence on a topic, or a new topic being introduced in academic or health care settings that they feel they should know about. Being an expert in an area is no longer enough of a reason for a reviewer to give up 3-4 hours of their time to provide authors with a critique-unless the reviewer thinks this information will substantially add to what they already know and to the field. Yet authors often assume just because they have chosen to study something of interest to them that it will be of interest to many. For reviewers and readers of journals like Nursing Outlook (NO) the idea proposed, findings reported and policy changes suggested must address a critical gap or propose a new innovative approach to an old problem. And the significance must be clear enough to the reader in just a few seconds that the reviewer is enticed to read more. And when a reviewer agrees to accept an invitation to review, they often take the time to read the abstract only. So make every word count. For every manuscript submitted to NO that is sent to reviewers I have found I have to ask 3 reviewers to get one to complete their review. I try to catch and reject without review those manuscripts I know are not a good fit with the journal. At least 30 percent of the time, I will invite 6-8 and no reviewer will agree to review. Yet for manuscripts that address a timely topic, or present an original approach to thinking about old problems, or are well written about topics debated in the field currently, all 4 reviewers initially asked will respond and submit a review. Usually they don’t all agree on the disposition, of course! But they do provide very thoughtful suggestions and pose important questions the authors must think about for the paper to make an impact on the field. It doesn’t mean there is anything inherently wrong with the manuscript that isn’t of interest to our reviewers- it may just be very appropriate for another audience.
3. Clear, concise and thorough description of evidence to support premises in manuscript and/or methods used Often authors are confused when reviewers ask for more detail about methods in the case of empirical studies, or critique their logic when presenting an innovative approach to a challenge. The authors assume the detail asked for will add length to the paper, which is almost always already too long but not well organized. My standard suggestion is that the author would be much better off analyzing closely how they explained what they did and what the reviewers are asking. One common example is measurement strategies used. For instance, a survey, interview or questionnaire and the associated psychometrics (if appropriate) are not described thoroughly. Instead authors often write about the procedures they took and
not the substance of the survey. It is not possible to weigh the validity of the findings if that psychometric information is not provided. However, one does not need to take an entire page to describe the survey tool! Rather, use concise, clear language to explain what the construct measured was, what the conceptual categories are (i.e., subscales), how many overall items, response format, potential scoring range, and psychometrics will be important. This can actually be done is a couple of paragraphs.
4. A cogent, meaningful and influential discussion section should not be left to readers’ imaginations The discussion is the one place creativity and big picture thinking is critical on the part of the authors. And I think it is the hardest part of a manuscript to write for just that reason. For empirical studies many authors chose to just reiterate the findings when it is here that they have the opportunity to place their findings in the context of existing knowledge, to shape the thinking of others about the future, whether next studies or practice implications, and to speculate about how this manuscript could and should influence policy. It is in the discussion where it is often clear whether this manuscript is a good fit for NO.
Conclusion In summary, the service of reviewers are truly what stands between ‘just another paper’ and a paper that can shape the way nurses at all levels and in all roles think about their work, the meaning of what we do for people and whether or not our thinking can influence solutions. Senior scholars in our field who publish papers in NO continue to amaze me with their approach to revisions. They see the comments and critiques of reviewers as a gift that enables them to re-think their thinking and analysis of issues in the paper. With input they craft their message in a way that it will make a difference- not just be another publication on a C.V. And I will always be grateful to those reviewers who take their stewardship service very seriously and provide authors with the opportunity to really add to what we know. This donation of time is a gift every author should take very seriously. It is through the service of excellent reviewers and reflective authors that scholars are ‘born’ and scholarship shapes the field.
reference
Jinha, A. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258e263.
Nurs Outlook 63 (2015) 233e235
Author Description Marion E. Broome is the Editor-in-Chief of Nursing Outlook.
Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN Corresponding author: Dr. Marion E. Broome Dean and Professor, Vice Chancellor for Nursing Affairs Duke University School of Nursing
235
Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, DUHS School of Nursing Duke University DUMC 3322, 307 Trent Dr. Durham, NC 27710. E-mail address: [email protected]
0029-6554/$ e see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.04.005
