Civility in Nursing Peer Review: Giving and Receiving Feedback

Abstract

A novice author prepared and submitted a manuscript to a professional nursing journal. This author is nervous and excited as she awaits the reply of the peer reviewers and the journal editor. The author receives feedback from the peer reviewers. Figure 1 provides an excerpt of some of the comments received. The journal editor informs the author that for this paper to be accepted, she must revise the work and address the reviewer's suggestions. The manuscript status is labeled, “Accepted pending major revision.” The author feels overwhelmed, inadequate, frustrated, and considers whether she can make the revisions requested. She is concerned if she can address these issues or if she should even resubmit the paper to another journal. Nursing peer review involves experts, usually unpaid volunteers, reviewing written work submitted by authors and providing feedback (Harding, 3; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Wiley], 2018; Wierzbinski-Cross, 7). Peer reviewers generally use guidelines and/or checklists provided by the publisher to review these submissions and provide their feedback to the editor. Frequently reviewers are asked to evaluate items such as adherence to journal guidelines, accuracy, credibility, relevance, fit within the scope of a journal, and contribution to the discipline (Harding, 3; Wierzbinski-Cross, 7). Ultimately, this peer review process should provide authors with feedback to improve their work and give editors the necessary information they need to make publication decisions. Unfortunately, the nursing peer review process does not always meet its intended purpose. Why? One of the reasons may be attributed to peer to peer incivility. Incivility, or “one or more rude, discourteous, or disrespectful actions that may or may not have negative intent behind them”, is common within nursing (American Nurses Association [ANA], 2018, para. 2). The peer review process is no exception (Amerson, 2). Research suggests nurses do not often recognize their own incivility against their peers (Amerson, 2). Figure 1 provides an example of a peer review which has multiple instances of disrespectful and demeaning language. This review even had numerous occurrences where the reviewer used all capital letters, which is usually perceived as yelling. Nurse authors, many of whom are often inexperienced writers, can feel angry, hurt, and resentful of the peer review and publication process when they experience incivility (Amerson, 2; Harding, 3). Their work may be acceptable, or with revisions may make meaningful contributions to nursing; however, incivility in peer review may discourage authors from revising current works or submitting future works. What is the solution? Civility in the nursing peer review process must occur with each member involved: peer reviewers, authors, and editors. Considerations for each member are detailed in the next sections. To ensure peer reviewers help meet the intended purpose of the peer review process, feedback needs to be carefully delivered. Before even agreeing to review a manuscript, peer reviewers should ensure that the work is within their area of expertise, that they have adequate time to thoughtfully review the submission, and they do not have any competing personal, financial, or intellectual interests (Amerson, 2). Additionally, peer reviewers should try to move beyond just being civil. Their feedback can provide objective but useful suggestions that enhance clarity and promote author growth while ensuring quality publications for the journal. The following steps can guide manuscript review by peer reviewers: Authors first need to give themselves credit for having the courage to submit their work. What's next? Take a deep breath and keep an open mind. Approach the peer review process with the mindset that feedback is an opportunity to grow and learn. When first receiving the feedback, read through it once. Allow a day or two before revisiting the review particularly if the review is negative. Let the feedback soak in and ask questions such as what can be learned from this? How can the feedback improve current and/or future works? After you have processed the feedback, begin your revisions. Then, after using the feedback to improve the manuscript, it is time to reply to the peer reviewers. Consider the following steps: Editors depend upon the volunteer pool of reviewers to offer guidance for decisionmaking about manuscript quality, thus serving as an intermediary in the publication process. The advice of reviewers is critical but ultimately the decision of acceptance rests with the editor. Therefore, editors need to ensure that the reviews provide constructive and helpful guidance that will direct the authors. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggests that editors send reviewer comments to authors in their entirety, unless they are offensive. Given this recommendation by COPE, editors should take steps to ensure that the reviews are civil, supportive, and clear. The following steps can guide editors: There are numerous resources available to assist all involved in the publication process. The following resources provide additional guidance for peer reviewers, authors, and editors about writing, reviewing, and publishing. And of course, many of the articles published here in Nurse Author & Editor] CONCLUSION How might Figure 1 be transformed into a more civil peer review? Figure 2 provides an example revision of the earlier peer review. Although the above example focuses on a peer reviewer's feedback, peer reviewers, authors, and editors are all responsible for conducting themselves civilly in peer review and publication processes. The culture of incivility in nursing peer review is not conducive to sustaining and developing nursing science. It is important all nurses are encouraged and supported in the important journey of sharing ideas through publication. Jennifer Chicca MS, RN is a Graduate Assistant and PhD Candidate at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is an experienced nurse and has worked in nursing professional development and with undergraduate and graduate students in a variety of roles and settings. Contact Jennifer by email: j.chicca@iup.edu. Teresa Shellenbarger PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF is a Distinguished University Professor and the Doctoral Program Coordinator in the Department of Nursing and Allied Health Professions at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. She is an experienced nurse educator and author. She currently serves as an Author-In-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor and regularly contributes articles about writing. Contact Teresa by email: tshell@iup.edu.