Peer-Review Responsibility

Editors depend on expert professionals to maintain the quality of article publication through peer review. Highquality peer review takes time and thought, and the pay is satisfaction for contributing to nursing science. There is a deep competition for time among the professional commitments one faces. The responsibility to maintain publication quality, however, requires the time commitment from professionals. Pierson outlines the steps to quality peer review (http:// www.nurseauthoreditor.com/24329-Nursing-ReviewingMS S12ppselfcover_8.5x11_for_web.pdf). She recommends two readings of the article: one general reading and then the reading for specifics. Reviewers ask questions (a) how significant is the topic and (b) is all the information here that I need about the problem, the approach, the discussion, conclusions, and implications? For The Journal of School Nursing, two types of reviewers are assigned: research experts and clinical experts. The research experts focus on the science of the article and the clinical experts focus on the quality of the scientific interpretation for clinical readers and the implications for practice. Reviewers check the evaluation criteria and develop a narrative to provide authors with specific feedback. The narrative begins with positive statements such as appreciation for the opportunity to review. An easy approach to writing comments for the author is to follow the evaluation criteria. Unhelpful comments such as ‘‘nice job’’ and ‘‘not clear’’ are expanded and substantiated with examples from the article. For example, if the literature review is of particular note, the comment might be complimenting the synthesis of the literature. If the review lacked synthesis, rather than saying not clear, directing the authors to synthesize the literature is more helpful. Reviewing for style, grammar, and punctuation for The Journal of School Nursing is not necessary since copy editing is managed by the publisher. If there are problems with style, grammar, and punctuation, a general statement is helpful alerting the author such as the narrative grammar, punctuation, and organization could be improved by following the recommended style of The Journal (The American Psychological Association, 2009). Another example comment might be the organization of the article would be helped by following the guidelines from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The review team of The Journal of School Nursing consists of the reviewers and the executive editor. The review team can commit two types of errors in reviewing (Straub, 2008). The first error occurs when there is a difference in opinion about the significance of the article between the review team and the readers of the journal. In this case, a paper may be published that is of little interest to the readership as indicated by low-internet accesses or citations. The journal is at risk of criticism for publishing insignificant papers. ‘‘Publication systems are self-correcting’’ (Straub, 2008, p. v) however and the insignificant paper will be ignored. The greater concern is the second type of error when a paper is rejected because of the quality of the writing when the topic is of importance to the profession. By not publishing an article with a significant focus, an opportunity is missed to advance work that can improve the health of school children and school nursing practice. To avoid this error, reviewers and the executive editor must evaluate the contribution of the topic to the field carefully and offer sound critique that allows for revision. The Journal of School Nursing is fortunate to have dedicated, expert reviewers. The Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) and the Editorial Consultants Board (ECB) add their expertise as reviewers as well as contribute to editorial policy. The combined efforts of the review panel, the EAB and the ECB, serve to ensure the quality of publications in The Journal of School Nursing.