Peer reviewers are crucial in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2017). This article may assist reviewers for British Journal of Nursing (BJN) and those who are publishing, or are considering publishing, with BJN who would find it useful to know what reviewers consider when making a decision on an article that has been submitted for publication in the journal. This article sets out 10 essential principles that every reviewer of academic articles should follow.
The importance of peer review in maintaining scholarly standards
Reviewing academic articles is an important responsibility within the scholarly community. A key component in the research publication process is peer review, where the quality and potential impact of each submission are assessed by fellow experts in the scientific community (American Psychological Association, 2021). Peer reviewers act as gatekeepers of quality, ensuring that published work (including research) is credible, rigorous and valuable to the field. To fulfil this role effectively, reviewers must adhere to certain principles that guide their evaluation process (COPE, 2017).
When reviewing articles, it is the reviewer's role to inform and advise the editor, who will make the final decision regarding the article's suitability for publication. All BJN's longer form articles are double-blind peer reviewed, therefore reviewers are extremely important in the editorial process. Reviewers' feedback and comments are greatly valued, this is one of the most important factors in maintaining the journal's editorial quality and integrity.
The nuances of reviewing
It should be noted from the outset that there is no ‘silver bullet’, no single, simple solution or clear-cut set of criteria for judging the quality of a proposed article. Instead, the quality of articles varies widely and most articles are not strictly ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but have strengths and weaknesses that place them somewhere in between these extremes. This highlights the complexity of evaluating academic work and the need for careful, nuanced assessment.
Aligning reviews with BJN's focus and priorities
Reviewers focus on the criteria and priorities of the journal they are reviewing for. In the case of BJN, this primarily concerns clinical practice; BJN is the only fortnightly journal for clinical nurses. Many journals prioritise or emphasise scientific novelty, innovative or original research that brings new insights. However, this is not always the sole criterion for an article's value. Although BJN often emphasises innovation and novel research in nursing practice and theory, this does not mean that only groundbreaking studies are considered valuable. The journal also appreciates contributions that strengthen existing knowledge, discuss innovations in care delivery and care outcomes that validate previous research findings, provide new insights into established practices or offer revised interpretations of known data. Therefore, reviewers for BJN evaluate manuscripts not only for their originality but also for their relevance, practical implications (impact on care) and how they contribute to advancing nursing knowledge and practice.
Accepting a review assignment
Reviewers should only agree to accept a review if they can do it within the requested timeframe. Delays in the publication are unfair to both the authors, who are waiting for timely feedback, and the editorial staff of the journal, who are tasked with managing the review process. Reviewers who are unresponsive can slow down the process and this can create frustration for authors who are waiting for their feedback. Being transparent about availability to review and adhering to deadlines helps prevent issues and ensures a more efficient review process.
It is also important to consider that the article is likely to require revisions that need to be looked at by the same reviewer. Reviewers must consider whether they are able to follow this through. Declining to look at a revision further lengthens the editorial process as another reviewer will have to be found to look at the article.
Managing conflicts of interest in peer review
Reviews can be conducted in different ways and they come in various forms. BJN operates a double-blind review system where neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Regardless of the review process being used, reviewers should adhere to the highest ethical standards.
The purpose of maintaining anonymity in the peer-review process is to ensure impartiality and prevent bias. However, this anonymity should not be used as a shield to hide or overlook unethical practices or scientific misconduct. In other words, just because the identities of reviewers and authors are kept confidential, it does not mean that unethical behaviour or issues with the manuscript should be ignored or tolerated. The review process should still be conducted with integrity, and any misconduct should be reported and addressed appropriately. If there is a potential personal or professional conflict of interest, such as a situation where the article being reviewed could influence the reviewers own research or is closely related to their upcoming work, then the reviewer should decline the request to undertake the review. This helps ensure that the review process remains impartial and that the evaluation of the article is not influenced by the reviewer's own interests or future work.
The review request will often include just the abstract initially, with the full article provided only after agreement to review has been made. If the reviewer identifies a clear conflict of interest, then they should decline to review the article. In cases where the conflict is less obvious, they should consult with the journal editor before accepting the review.
Be thorough, fair and respectful
A brief or poorly informed review can negatively impact the reviewer's reputation. It is important to support any critique made or praise given with detailed, logical explanations. Although the authors may not know the reviewer's identity, the editor does and they evaluate the quality and timeliness of reviews. This evaluation affects the reviewer's profile, which is monitored and analysed by the journal. Many journals, including BJN, provide the author with feedback from peers after an article is accepted or rejected. Use these reviews to enhance reviewing skills and maintain a high standard in reviewing. It is also important to be kind when writing a review and offer encouragement to the author. Put yourself in the author's shoes and think about what you would be happy to read as an author.
Reviewers are an integral part of the writing process
Reviewers' feedback, especially when it prompts revisions, should contribute to making the article better. Sometimes, even an article that has been close to being rejected can be turned into a highly cited work through several rounds of revisions, guided by thorough reviewer comments.
Although reviewers may not receive formal recognition in the article, they are essential partners in the article's success. A primary goal of reviewers is to help authors improve their work, even if it means rejecting the manuscript to uphold the field's standards. Reviewers' suggestions are intended to improve an article, but authors may feel that they do not need to accept all the changes suggested. A brief note about why the author has decided this will help the editor make a decision.
Enjoying and learning from the reviewing process
Participating in peer review is a valuable service to the academic community. However, it is recognised that if the reviewer reviews more articles, it is likely that they will receive more requests and some of these may not be of interest. Although contributing as a reviewer is important, it is beneficial to focus on accepting articles that are genuinely engaging, either because they are closely related to a specific research field or because they offer an opportunity to learn something new.
The reviewer does not have to be an expert in the specific topic of an article to offer a valuable review. Sometimes, offering a different perspective can significantly improve the submission. If it is believed that a unique viewpoint could add value, it is important to communicate this to the Editor, who can then determine how to consider the feedback. Although editors might prefer that reviewers review a variety of articles, it is important to concentrate on those that match the reviewer's interests and expertise to make the best use of their reviewing time. A reviewer can ensure that the articles of interest come to them to review by filling in their reviewer profile on the manuscript portal to include all relevant key words and classifications.
Develop a personalised approach to reviewing
Developing an individualised approach to reviewing academic articles is important; effective strategies can differ among reviewers. A useful method is to first read the manuscript comprehensively from beginning to end to grasp its overall scope and originality. Then, consult the journal's Guide to Authors (https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/page/authors/submissions), especially if unfamiliar with the journal or the specific type of article being reviewed, such as a review article.
With this foundational understanding, a detailed analysis of the manuscript can then proceed. Provide a summary of the assessment along with specific feedback. Use clear reasoning to justify any criticisms and also highlight the strengths of the work. Reviewers should check that the correct referencing system has been used and that references are up to date and from recognised, reputable sources. Reviewers do not need to check for spelling or grammatical errors, this is the job of the editorial team. However, any incomprehensible language should be highlighted. Adding relevant references that the author may have overlooked can be a valuable contribution. A well-rounded review should cover both major issues and minor details in the manuscript.
Focus on reviewing articles offering substantial value to the field
The ‘publish-or-perish’ syndrome refers to a pressure-driven environment in academia where researchers and academics are compelled to frequently publish their work to advance their careers, secure funding and maintain their positions. Often this can result in many low-quality articles, which might not be thoroughly filtered out by editors before being sent for review. Reviewers should avoid spending excessive time on poorly constructed articles, particularly since their lack of quality might not be apparent from the abstract alone. If a decision has been made to allocate limited time to these reviews, be clear about the reasons for doing so. If there are any positive aspects of the article, recognise them and provide constructive feedback to encourage the author, while clearly explaining the reasons for rejecting the article.
Maintain anonymity
Maintaining anonymity in the peer review process is crucial, particularly in small health and care/scientific communities where keeping identities concealed can be challenging. Reviewers may sometimes inadvertently disclose their identity by suggesting that authors cite their own work, which can undermine the anonymity of the review. To prevent this, reviewers should thoroughly check their feedback to ensure it does not compromise anonymity. BJN's policy mandates anonymity, reviewers should not share the manuscript with others unless explicitly authorised by the editor.
It is crucial to follow BJN's principles regarding anonymity very carefully. Within the academic community, there are diverse and strongly held opinions about the importance of maintaining anonymity during the peer-review process. Some people believe that keeping reviewers' and authors' identities confidential is essential for ensuring unbiased and honest feedback. Others may have different perspectives or place less emphasis on the need for anonymity. Because these opinions can be very polarised, it is important to strictly follow the anonymity principles set by the journal to maintain consistency and fairness in the review process.
Be clear, concise, neutral and decisive with the review
A review that has been poorly written can be just as challenging as a poorly written article. It is important that both the editors and authors can easily understand the feedback provided. A clear, point-by-point critique is effective because it is easy to follow and to address any issues identified. For each point made, the reviewer should indicate its significance to the article's acceptance.
Regardless of personal opinions about the article's topic, avoid imposing individual theories or biases. Provide a definitive recommendation for publication to the editor. Reviewers should also avoid indecision, such as failing to give a rating when asked, as this can unnecessarily delay the review process.
Use the ‘comments to editor’ feature
BJN allows reviewers to submit comments directly to the editor that are not visible to the authors. This feature allows reviewers to share their personal opinions or perspectives on the article in a few concise sentences. However, it is important that these comments are supported by the review itself; for example, if it has been stated that an article should not be published, the review must provide strong evidence to back up this claim.
The ‘comments to editor’ section is also a place where the reviewer can relax anonymity slightly and provide additional context for the decision. For instance, if the decision is influenced by the reviewer's experience in the field or with other articles reviewed for the journal, this can be mentioned in the editor-only section. It is also an opportunity to acknowledge any personal limitations or biases that are related to the article's content.
This section is often underused but it can significantly aid the editor, especially in those cases where there are divided opinions among reviewers.
The value of reviewing
Becoming a reviewer for a nursing journal offers numerous benefits that contribute significantly to both personal and professional growth. It serves as an excellent opportunity for professional development. Reviewing manuscripts allows individuals to gain a deeper understanding of current research and trends within the field of nursing. This exposure enhances knowledge and expertise, keeping reviewers abreast of emerging practices and methodologies.
In addition to professional development, reviewing manuscripts fosters valuable networking opportunities. Engaging with the editorial board and fellow reviewers helps build professional connections, which can lead to collaborations, mentorship and interactions with influential figures in the nursing community.
The role of a reviewer is also pivotal in contributing to advances in the field. By providing thoughtful feedback on manuscripts, reviewers play a crucial part in ensuring the quality and rigour of published research. This, in turn, supports the advancement of nursing science and practice and enhances care provision.
Reviewing enhances critical thinking, analytical and writing skills. Evaluating research design, data analysis and overall manuscript quality has the potential to sharpen one's own research and writing abilities, promoting continuous improvement.
Keeping up to date with the latest developments and innovative practices is another key advantage. Reviewing manuscripts keeps individuals informed about cutting-edge research and evidence-based practices, which is essential for staying current in the nursing profession. Acting as a reviewer can enhance professional recognition and prestige. It demonstrates a commitment to advancing nursing practice, nursing research and education, contributing to an enhanced professional reputation and credibility.
Conclusion
Reviewers have a direct impact on the quality of research published. By ensuring that only high-quality research is disseminated, reviewers help promote evidence-based practice, which ultimately benefits clinical practice and patient outcomes. Becoming a reviewer offers a valuable platform for personal and professional advancement, active engagement with the academic community and a meaningful contribution to the field of nursing.