Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews

Abstract

Research in Nursing & HealthVolume 29, Issue 2 p. 71-73 EditorialFree Access Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews†‡§ Linda H. Bearinger, Linda H. Bearinger Center for Adolescent Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, MNSearch for more papers by this author Linda H. Bearinger, Linda H. Bearinger Center for Adolescent Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, MNSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 March 2006 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20119Citations: 9 † Linda H. Bearinger is in Editorial Board, Research in Nursing and Health. ‡ During the preparation of this editorial, the author was supported by a nursing training grant (T80-MC00021; Center for Adolescent Nursing, PI: Bearinger) from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, (Title V, Social Security Act) Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services; and a Health Protection Research Initiative Training Grant (T01 CD000185; Adolescent Health Protection Research Training Program; PI: Bearinger) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. § Linda H. Bearinger is a Professor of School of Nursing and Department of Pediatrics and a Medical School Director. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Alexander, G.R. (2005). A guide to reviewing manuscripts. Maternal & Child Health Journal, 9, 113– 117. Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L., & Hall, J.E. (2003). A personal review: How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 47– 52. Davidoff, F. (2004). Improving peer review: Who's responsible? British Medical Journal, 328, 657– 658. Emden, C. (1996). Manuscript reviewing: Too long a concealed form of scholarship? Nursing Inquiry, 3, 195– 199. Foster, R.L. (2002) The fine art of critique. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 7, 47– 48. Goodman, S.N., Berlin, J., Fletcher, S.W., & Fletcher, R.H. (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121, 11– 21. Kearney, M.H. & Freda, M.C. (2005). Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 444– 452. Seals, D.R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23, 52– 58. Snell, L., & Spencer, J. (2005). Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Medical Education, 39, 90. SUGGESTED READINGS Baggs, J.G., & Miniccuci, D. (2000). Shining a light on the black box of the review process at Research in Nursing & Health. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 1– 2. Becker, P.T. (2004). What happens to my manuscript when I send it to Research in Nursing and Health? Research in Nursing & Health, 27, 379– 381. Becker, P.T. (2005). Conceptual frameworks: Issues for manuscript review and the dissemination of research findings. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 363– 364. Burnard, P., & Hannigan, B. (2001). Reviewing the review process: Towards good practice in the peer review of manuscript submitted to nursing journals. Nurse Education Today, 21, 238– 242. Griffin-Sobel, J.P. (2004). Tips for reviewing manuscripts. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 8, 653. Knafl, K.A., & Deatrick, J.A. (2005). Top 10 tips for successful qualitative grantsmanship. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 441– 443. Osgood, M. (2004). Peer reviewer guidelines. Key Words, 12, 119. Weber, E.J., Katz, P.P., Waeckerle, J.F., & Callahand, M.L. (2002). Author perception of peer review: Impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction. JAMA, 287, 2790– 2793. Weil, J. (2004). Peer review: An essential step in the publishing process. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 183– 187. Citing Literature Volume29, Issue2April 2006Pages 71-73 ReferencesRelatedInformation