Expanding the Paediatric Urology Peer Review Pipeline: A Novel Panel and Facilitated Peer Mentorship Program

Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?

The American Journal of Psychiatry Residents' Journal: Training the Next Generation of Academic Psychiatrists.

Dear NANN Colleagues, Over the past 2 years, the editorial board at Advances in Neonatal Care (ANC) with our recommendations as Co-Editors moved to implement changes in our manuscript peer review process. Some of our reviewers have written us about these changes, but we realized that other peer reviewers may not have noticed and authors may not be fully aware of the changes. Therefore, in this editorial, we highlight some of the current issues around scholarly peer review and the current peer review process used by ANC. PEER REVIEW HISTORY The use of peer reviewers is considered the “gold standard” in publishing to ensure that scholarly work is rigorous, accurate, and novel. In a recent issue of the Scholarly Kitchen, a blog sponsored by the Society for Scholarly Publishing,1 Melinda Baldwin, a physicist, was interviewed about her recent publication about the history of peer review.2 Dr Baldwin pointed out that while use of peers to review published work began in the mid-19th century with a few scholarly societies, widespread adoption of peer review publications did not occur until the 1970s. Peer review of manuscripts was widely adopted at the same time that research funding institutions like the National Institutes of Health were using peer reviewers to “judge” the credibility of grant applications. Peer review in journals was felt to be one way of justifying to funders the truthfulness and value of the grants they had funded.2 Widespread adoption of peer review in both research and clinical journal articles became common place by the 1980s. ACCEPTED PEER REVIEW PROCESSES When peer review was first initiated, both the reviewers (2-3) and author(s) knew the identity of the other individual(s) involved in the process. However, the Royal Society of London posited that reviewers would provide unfettered feedback if they were not named.2 Peer reviewers' identities were then blinded so that authors would not be aware of who provided feedback on their work. Subsequently reviewers were also blinded to the identity of authors. Blinding the identity of the author was thought to ensure independence and minimize bias in the recommendations an individual reviewer would provide to improve the manuscript.3 However, when reviewers are experts in their field, they often know and can recognize the work of their colleagues even when the author is not named. Therefore, the validity of a truly “blind” review is often called into question, especially when the community of scholars around a particular topic is relatively small. Currently, there are a wide variety of accepted practices in peer review.3,4 Many journals continue to use a double-blinded review process where both the author and reviewers are not known to each other. However, single-blinded review has become the most common form of review.3 In single-blinded reviews the author is identified to the reviewer, but the reviewers are not known to the authors. Other journals like the British Medical Journal employ a totally transparent peer review process.5 Authors and reviewers are both aware of the identity of the other, and if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the original submission, the reviewers' comments, the authors response to the reviewers, and the final manuscript are all available online. This process is felt to provide not only transparency within the process but also accountability and credit to the reviewers for the time and effort they provide in the process of publication of scholarly works.6,7 Finally, hybrid models of peer review include one of the above processes along with postpublication commentary and discussion to critique the quality of the work. The value of the manuscript is believed to be revealed in the discourse and ongoing citation record based on the commentary and discussion. Thus, the discussion can add to the impact and value of the work. Research about the peer review process has not provided information about a clear advantage of one review process over another.3 SUPPORT of ANC PEER REVIEWS Regardless of the process used for peer review, editors and authors alike must respect the time commitment involved in a thoughtful peer review. To support ANC reviewers, specific questions important to the journal are listed to facilitate the review. In addition, reviewers are provided continuing education credit for the time they take to complete the review. Finally, annually we recognize the ANC reviewers by publishing their names in ANC. Most recently ANC 's publisher, Wolters Kluwer (Lippincott) has designed a peer review training course available at the following Web site: http://wkauthorservices.editage.com/peer-reviewer-training-course/. We hope our current and future reviewers will check out the free course. For those who want to understand the peer review process even more thoroughly, there is a more comprehensive course available that does have a fee attached. ANC PEER REVIEW PROCESSES Currently, ANC uses single-blinded peer review. Our rationale for changing from double- to single-blinded review was twofold. First, in the neonatal nursing community, it is often difficult to fully blind a manuscript even with the authors' names and institutional affiliations not identified. In addition, the time from submission to peer review completion was often increased because manuscripts had to be sent back to authors for blinding of items they may have missed. Like double-blinded peer review, single-blinded reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that would preclude them from providing an unbiased peer review. Our peer reviewers are asked to complete the peer review within 2 weeks of accepting the assignment to shorten the time from the initial submission to author feedback. We also have recently changed our process and only send the manuscript to 2 peer reviewers to decrease the burden on our pool of ANC reviewers. See Figure 1 for a flowchart of the ANC review process.Figure 1: ANC peer review process flowchart.Thank you to all of our peer reviewers for sharing their expertise and taking the time to provide thoughtful review to our authors. We hope that others will consider joining our peer review team. If you are interested in finding out more about peer reviewing for ANC please contact us. Debra Brandon, PhD, RN, CCNS, FAAN Co-Editor; Advances in Neonatal Care [email protected] Jacqueline M. McGrath, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN Co-Editor; Advances in Neonatal Care [email protected]

FigureThe concept of peer review can be interpreted very differently among nurses and healthcare professionals. Some think of a subject expert reviewing a manuscript for a journal's editorial staff. Others think of regulatory bodies requiring hospitals to have an internal process to ensure that healthcare team members are competent and able to perform within their scope of practice.1 Still others think of peer review as a quality assurance process in which healthcare team members audit each other's documentation to validate care standardization. We provide insight into a nursing peer review process designed to evaluate performance, and the journey to its implementation. A well-defined peer review process and tool, utilized in conjunction with a nurse's annual performance evaluation, is one way to infuse meaningful peer input into a performance appraisal. This system allows nurses to provide insight into one another's strengths and opportunities for growth. A detailed approach was used to create, develop, and sustain a nursing peer review program that's flexible enough to be used by all staff members within a pediatric hospital system. In addition to promoting professional growth among nursing staff, this process also meets the current peer review standards set by the Magnet Recognition Program® and The Joint Commission. The ultimate goal of sharing this information is to help other organizations that are just beginning the peer review process and those that have struggled in the past with development and implementation to bring about a sustainable change. This, in turn, will promote nursing cohesiveness and professionalism as we work together to bring healthcare into a new era. Organizational standardization Our organization embarked on an initiative to create a standardized peer review process that would be utilized by all nursing departments. The process needed to be integrated organizationally and applicable to clinical nurses within both inpatient and outpatient environments. This journey began with a review of the current literature and an examination of the current peer review practice at other Magnet® facilities. Through this process, it was discovered that the majority of these facilities utilized and defined peer review in a variety of ways. We identified variation in the management of the peer review process within our own organization. Acknowledging the vast array of discrepancies within and external to the organization, a task force of clinical nurses was developed to redefine the way our organization administered the clinical nurse peer review process. This task force also included two leadership liaisons who served as resources to the clinical nurses during this development and provided insight into the management side of the peer review process. There were four steps in our process: (1) defining a peer, (2) developing a peer review form, (3) transforming the process, and (4) implementing the process. Who's a peer? The first step in our work involved evaluating, discussing, and reaching a consensus on the definition of peer. In order to standardize the peer review process, the task force recognized a true definition was needed to measure success with the new process. Looking at previous peer review practice in the organization, many nurses and department directors had different definitions and ideas of what it meant to be a peer. Some departments included other disciplines in a nurse's specialty for evaluations, whereas others utilized only fellow nursing staff members. The task force agreed that the purpose of peer review is to foster professional growth and development among staff members by utilizing a process through which measurable outcomes are assessed. After much dialog, the task force adopted the definition of peer utilized by the American Nurses Association, which defines a peer as an individual of the same rank or standing according to the established standards of practice.2 Form development The next step in redefining the peer review process was to develop a new peer review tool that could be transferrable and applicable among the various nursing specialties and departments. Key areas identified by the task force for development of this tool included creating a short, concise form that's easy to understand with limited directions and applicable to all clinical nursing departments. To achieve this goal, the task force worked collaboratively to establish eight domains that would provide nurses with a peer evaluation framework. These domains were established through open dialog, including question-and-answer sessions, review of current job descriptions, and evaluation of other tools utilized by various Magnet facilities. Through this work, a common set of core expectations were identified and utilized in the development of each domain. These domains encompass the essential clinical nurse job functions, behavioral competencies, and basic roles and responsibilities throughout the organization. The domains can be found in Table 1.Table 1: The eight domains of peer evaluationTo further guide and support high-quality peer feedback, three to five specific, measurable objectives were created and listed under each domain for nurses to measure performance. These objectives were developed to guide peers in evaluating each nurse by providing focused, pertinent feedback. The task force wanted to eliminate vague, nonspecific feedback that didn't facilitate the identification of future growth opportunities. The objectives created by the task force assist peers in identifying evidence from the nurse's daily work, communication, time management, and interdisciplinary interactions. Each domain also included a comment field, allowing nurses the autonomy to provide open-ended feedback and elaborate on outstanding work or opportunities for the employee's growth and improvement. The comment section was extremely important in the solicitation of meaningful feedback because it allowed nurses to provide examples to reinforce the ratings selected for the objectives. The directions on the new tool clearly state that comments are mandatory for certain ratings to allow for elaboration and examples. The task force believed a Likert rating scale was essential to standardize the peer review process. The previous process utilized a vague, numerical score that hadn't historically provided nurses with adequate descriptions of their work ethic and performance. Lower scores were considered negative responses, whereas higher scores equated to positive responses. After review of the current literature, the task force employed a 4-point Likert scale comprising "not met," "approaching," "meets expectations," and "exceeds expectations." In addition to the scaled questions, an open-ended question "Do you feel comfortable working with this nurse?" was added to the form. Utilizing a mixed-method methodology, Likert scale, and open-ended question format allowed the evaluating nurse a better opportunity to provide real-life contextual examples related to the evaluated nurse's care.3 Process transformation After the peer evaluation tool was created, the task force focused its attention on creating a framework to aid departments in implementing the new peer review process. Throughout our hospital, there are units of vastly different sizes. Some nursing departments have four to six clinical nurses, whereas other departments have as many as 150 to 200 clinical nurses on staff. The variability in staff sizes meant that the task force had to be creative in determining how many peer reviewers should evaluate each nurse annually and how these reviewers should be selected. With the new process, each nurse receives feedback from two to four RNs. Limiting the number of peer evaluations eliminated the previous dissatisfaction and/or barrier of evaluators being asked to fill out 20 to 30 peer evaluations a month due to exceedingly large nursing departments. The task force also allowed clinical nurses to select one to two peers of their choice to provide feedback; the management team selected the remaining peers. Implementation After the task force completed the new peer review tool and process recommendations, the nursing department directors and the CNO gave the approval for implementation. The standardized peer review form, along with the revised process, was implemented using various educational modalities. The first presentation was provided to the inpatient and outpatient nursing directors to inform them about the new form and the revised process. The directors were provided with handouts outlining the changes and educational fact sheets for the staff members to use as a reference. The task force increased its availability to ensure educational consistency to all clinical nurses by attending and presenting at unit-based councils, charge nurse meetings, and department-wide staff development programs. The feedback received from the different educational presentations was extremely positive. Feedback discussed the tool's ease of use, applicability to all nursing departments, appropriate form length, and measurable objectives that allowed nurses to comment on focused job roles and responsibilities. Other feedback included the improved functionality of the new rating scale and the process change that limited the number of requests for peer evaluations. Some directors expressed resistance to changing their current peer review practice. Certain directors thought feedback from four nurses wasn't enough if the department had a high number of nursing staff members. After an open discussion with the task force chairperson and the directors of large departments, it was agreed that meaningful feedback from four people would be adequate. Other directors mentioned that they liked the idea of adding specific clinical skills for peer evaluation. However, we couldn't add specific skills because they wouldn't universally apply to the various nursing department specialties. The task force collected all comments and feedback, and created a frequently asked questions document to address these concerns and explain the thought process behind the decisions made about the tool and recommendations. Directors were then provided with answers to and rationales for their specific questions and concerns, creating a consistent message and clarity to all departments. All education and implementation occurred over the course of 4 months. During this time, the task force worked with web development to formulate an electronic version of the peer evaluation document for the purpose of online submission. The electronic document was widely popular because it eliminated the use of paper and facilitated tool access for all clinical nurses. Staff members were able to complete the tool online and submit the evaluation through the organization's intranet directly to the person who requested the feedback. The task force also concluded that in order for this new tool and process to remain functional and meaningful, continued evaluation of its use would be essential. Reaching the top As we diligently work to move the nursing profession forward, it's important to remember that peer review can positively impact not only an individual's nursing practice, but also an entire hospital system. Nurses are at the forefront of healthcare transformation and are integral to sustainable practice improvement. By empowering clinical nurses to lead this initiative, we've been able to successfully introduce, develop, and support a valuable peer review process across our organization. Utilizing a comprehensive peer review tool can help organizations improve patient outcomes and patient satisfaction.

The International American Journal of Ophthalmology

Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation

Have you contemplated becoming a peer reviewer for a nursing journal? I can assure you that every editor's ears will perk up immediately if your answer is “yes,” or even “maybe.” Of course you will need to have certain qualifications to serve (which vary from journal to journal) and your expertise will need to match the focus of the journal. But the biggest challenge that journal editors face is securing well-qualified peer reviews—reviews that provide constructive feedback to help the authors develop their work, and feedback that provides sound guidance for the editor in making the decision related to publication. Consider the issues involved in the process of peer review. It is a somewhat thankless task that requires considerable time and effort. To assure that peer reviewers have no significant conflict of interest that coerces bias in their review, peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers who contribute their time and expertise. Here is a typical scenario—you have several deadlines that must be met (grant submissions, reports, student papers to read) and out of the blue an editor sends you a request to review a manuscript—which you know will take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours of your time. Often you simply must say “no,” but dedicated scholars who know how important this process is will accept the request and set aside time to do what needs to be done. The reason that you take this on is because you are part of a community of scholars who care about the integrity of our literature and recognize that if we are to have any confidence in the credibility of what is published in our professional journals, peer review is the time-honored way to provide assurance that our trust is well-placed. Peer review is the spine that supports quality in scholarly publishing. Despite widespread recognition of limitations and pitfalls of peer review (it does not always work as it should), it remains recognized as the best process to maintain quality and validity of material published in scholarly journals. Given this, the challenge is to find ways to assure quality of peer review, and to educate all stakeholders about what peer review is, why it is important, and what quality peer review means. There has never been a time when quality peer review has been more important than it is now. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of well-researched and peer reviewed publications to provide evidence for practice. Articles that have been rushed to publication have just as quickly been retracted.1 In the climate of “fake news” claims that sow seeds of doubt about even the most reliable of sources and the integrity of science, now is the time to double-down on our dedication to this task. And scholars all over the world are doing just that. For the past five years, the 3rd week in September has been designated a global “Peer Review Week,” (https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/) organized by a group of leaders in the scholarly publishing industry. An excellent summary by Alice Meadows of what has transpired every year since the first Peer Review Week is available at the Scholarly Kitchen. The peer review YouTube channel is an excellent overview of what peer review means and why it is important. And, they recently announced the theme and schedule for the 2020 peer review week! Become very familiar with all of the resources that have accumulated over the past five years, and plan to tune in for this major event beginning September 21st, 2020! Read the 2019 Peer Review Week blog post on the Scholarly Kitchen titled “How to Be a Good Peer Reviewer” by Jasmine Wallace. This very readable post covers all of the dimensions involved in the peer review process and the guidelines that Jasmine Wallace lays out get right to the heart of what the commitment is when you become a peer reviewer. Editage and Wolters-Kluwer have developed excellent peer review training courses that—as they say—help you become a great reviewer! The basic course is a no-cost online series of 6 modules that takes about 3 hours to complete. This covers the essential basics that all peer reviewers need to know and integrate into their own peer review practice. The advanced course, which requires a fee, includes the basic modules, plus information related to advanced methodologies and statistical techniques, tips to gain recognition for your service as a peer reviewer, practice reviews with feedback from the course faculty, and a certificate of completion. Find a mentor to get in-person guidance and practice with the process that will help you decide how to integrate this important service into your professional career. Some journals require “practice reviews” when you first agree to become a peer reviewer, providing feedback on your reviews to help you refine your skills before you become a regular peer reviewer for that journal. If you know colleagues who serve as a reviewer for a journal you read regularly, approach them to explore their experience and the possibility of learning what is involved in their experience. We have developed a peer-review mentoring program for Advances in Nursing Science. Click this link to learn more about this program that you can review to see how we have set up this experience, and modify it to suit your own needs in developing a similar experience with reviewers for other journals. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing (OJIN) has a BSN manuscript review panel, designed for baccalaureate prepared nurses to participate in and learn more about the peer review process. Click here to learn more. As a reader of this article, you are just one click away from one of the most valuable resources available for nurses: The Nurse Author & Editor Resources for Reviewers. In addition, you can click on the sidebar category “Peer Review” to see links to all of the articles that have appeared in Nurse Author & Editor on this topic–as of this writing, there are 16. So this is my invitation to you: seriously consider becoming a peer reviewer! Those of us involved in producing scholarly journals consider it an honor, and an obligation, to participate in both sides of the equation—writing and reviewing. We are authors who develop our work for publication, and we are peer reviewers who participate in the process that assures our literature is well-founded, reliable, and valid. Authors benefit from good peer reviews immensely—even when the feedback is not what they want to receive. Even though your time and effort is “behind the scenes” in the traditional peer review process, it is vital to the development of our discipline. Your service is highly valued by editors who depend on your reviews to assure the quality of their journal, and by the authors who are able to integrate your insights and recommendations as they develop their work. Take the steps today to begin your peer review journey! Peggy L. Chinn, RN, PhD, DSc(Hon), FAAN is Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Nursing Science, author of a few books, and manager or co-manager of several websites/blogs, including INANE. She is co-author of The Editor's Handbook, 3rd ed., published in July, 2019. She is an Author-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor. You can reach Peggy directly at: peggychinn@gmail.com

A Tool for Reviewers

The Next Chapter in a Good Story.

JID Innovations and Peer Review

Scientific journals, like the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, are dependent on their peer reviewers. Without a rigorous peer review of submitted papers, there are no publications and no journals. As researchers, we know that a critical and constructive evaluation of research in the review process is essential to move the science in our field forward. While worldwide the academic peer review system is under pressure (1–3), a rigorous peer review is more important than ever before for three reasons we highlight below: (i) an exponential increase in scholarly journals; (ii) the reduced reliance on facts; and (iii) the intensification of work. In the past years, researchers have received increasingly review requests from what seems a sheer flood of journals from all over the world. As shown in figure 1, the number of scientific journals has increased exponentially (4). Within this increase, we see robust scientific journals but also predatory ones, often characterized by high article processing charges, false claims of peer review, and the unethical listing of academics (or even fake scholars) on editorial boards without their consent (5). To date, www.predatoryjournals.org – a website that provides information and resources on predatory publishing practices – lists 1363 publishers and 2780 journals. Moreover, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies make it increasingly difficult for researchers and society to distinguish between facts (ie, evidence) and fiction. Robust peer reviews and high-quality journals are thus extra important nowadays. The proper use of AI in the writing, reviewing and publishing process is for all of us, editors, reviewers and researchers alike, a new challenge we have to carefully address. Clear guidelines of when AI can or cannot be used are in continuous development (see among others the BMJ www.bmj.com/content/ai-use). Researchers use AI tools for support in writing introductory paragraphs and perhaps in other parts of studies. This proliferation of AI tools will likely result in an increased number of papers. At the same time, we would like to stress that the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health prohibits reviewers from uploading manuscripts to AI platforms for review purposes as this clearly breach confidentiality, thus the availability of AI tools will likely be only of limited help in the review process. In addition to the tsunami of submitted papers, finding peer reviewers is another bottleneck in the academic peer review system. This is likely related to the intensification of work over the past decades. Society has become more globalized and digitalized, both increasing work pace, with major implications for the 24/7 work environment, making the working life more demanding and intense (6). Academics are experiencing high levels of work pressure (7), which can reduce their availability and willingness to participate in peer reviews (2). Yet, at a time when science is under increasing global pressure—from the rise of misinformation to sweeping policy changes and budget cuts—the need for skilled peer reviewers has never been greater. A robust and thorough review process is essential to uphold research quality in these changing times (8). To achieve this, we must build a large and diverse pool of reviewers that reflects the full breadth of researchers and research in our field. With this editorial, we would like to send out a call for peer review skills development in a mentor–mentee relationship. We at the Journal, but also the entire research community, need the next generation(s) of researchers to learn and apply peer review skills as we strongly believe they are crucial for good science. Senior researchers have many years of valued reviewing experience, and it is exactly this expertise they can pass on to their early-career colleagues. We propose to prioritize mentor–mentee relationships and approach performing a peer review as a necessary cornerstone of the competence and skill development of emerging researchers. As the peer-review process is often not taught by graduate schools or PhD programs, it is the responsibility of the individual PhD supervisor or research leader to teach or promote the important skill of providing constructive feedback which is really different from writing a scientific paper. We recognize that mentoring a new reviewer requires time and commitment from both the mentor and the mentee, as it is a learning process. However, this investment will pay off by helping to cultivate the next generation of thoughtful, critical, and constructive peer reviewers. Reviews conducted through a mentor–mentee collaboration may also lead to higher-quality outcomes, as each reviewer brings a fresh perspective—and no single reviewer can catch everything. In a time of growing societal misinformation, peer review must remain a high priority to safeguard the integrity of research. When it comes to the peer-review process itself, numerous checklists and guidelines exist, but our main message and call for action is to prioritize peer review tasks. In particular, we encourage early-career researchers to collaborate with their senior colleagues in the peer-review process. In 2024, Fagher & Verhagen (9) insightfully summarized the advantages of early-career researchers contributing to peer review. Peer review is an important academic skill that should be incorporated into eg, PhD portfolios. The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health provides early-career researchers with the opportunity to conduct peer reviews under the responsibility of a senior researcher. We hope this editorial contributes to our peer review system by motivating senior researchers to mentor early-career researchers, and by stimulating early-career researchers to develop their peer review skills. Especially, we hope that all our readers are now extra eager to prioritize peer review tasks and designate their precious time for peer review in good-standard journals. Together we can make it work!

Civility in Nursing Peer Review: Giving and Receiving Feedback

This is the 21st meeting of the scientific, peer-reviewed presentation section of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) Educational Conference, now a part of the ACC–Research Agenda Conference (ACC-RAC). This conference has grown substantially since its humble beginnings in 1994. The theme of this year's conference is “Aiming for effective change: Leadership in chiropractic education, research, and clinical practice,” which is very fitting. If the true essence of leadership is to implement effective change, then in my observation over the past 2 decades, I can say that we have done much as it relates to education and research in the chiropractic profession. For leaders to be successful, they must (1) establish direction and vision, (2) communicate goals, and (3) develop coalitions and alliances. The ACC Peer-Review Committee continues to establish direction and vision for scientific presentations, communicate these goals, and develop alliances in order to improve the current state of science and scholarship through the scholarly art of peer review. We are pleased that each year we observe the quality of presentations improve and exceed the quality of the previous year. We are honored to be a part of the quality improvement of scholarship in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this summary report is to provide a brief review of the peer-review processes for the ACC-RAC 2014.

The JAMA and NEJM Rulings and Their Impact on the Sanctity of Confidential Peer Review

Amicus ("friend of the court") brief written by scholars of biotechnology patent law in support of plaintiffs-appellees, supporting affirmance in AMP v. Myriad Genetics (No. 2010-1406).