Assignment 1: Explore Scholarly Writing Through Academic Journal Articles

The Peer-Review Process in Scholarly Writing

B R E N T D O N C L I F F

All writers who submit to peer-reviewed journals w ill have their manuscript reviewed. This discussion paper

examines some o f the reasons w hy peer review exists and provides com m ent on the process. It is helpful to

understand w hy this process exists and be aware of some o f the issues th a t have been reported over tim e in

relation to editorial peer review. This paper seeks to do this and pose a few questions for reflection. KEYW ORDS: peer review; process; discussion

A C A D E M IC J O U R N A L S A R E a key tool for the dissemination of research results, sharing

viewpoints and opinions and general professional communication (Campanario, 1998). Anyone who has submitted articles to academic journals will have had their manuscript reviewed and will have received a range of comments as a result of the peer-review process. The peer-review process is a part of the quality control measures for most professional journals. Anecdotally, it seems there are cifferences in the content of the reviews received from different scholarly journals. This prompted a quest to examine the issue of peer review. What follows is the outcome of a brief literature review and some reflection.

IDENTIFYING RELEVANT LITERATURE In order to get a range of articles for review, the terms ‘peer review’, ‘scholarly writing’, ‘academic journal’ and ‘editorial peer review’ used the Android© app Google Scholar. There were over 30,000 citations. The first 1,000 were screened, and, from these, a list o f 200 were chosen for review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW? Peer review is the review of actions, plans and research and is one of the quality measures that a profession uses to ensure the integrity of images and knowledge related to that pro­ fession. Put another way, if a sample of knowl­ edgeable peers within the profession come to general agreement that whatever it is that is being reviewed is not fraudulent, illegal, unsafe, ill-conceived, unethical or misrepresents the knowledge of the particular profession, then it should pass inspection. Quite simply, it limits risks (Price, 2014).

Peer review is a process that is used in other ways, not just in editorial review. Peer review has been used to determine allocation of re­ search funding and academic scholarships and to gauge consensus around strategic academic or judicial appointments. Peer review in nursing includes evaluating aspects o f professional nurs­ ing practice for opportunities to improve care and is done by people who have the appropriate knowledge and experience to perform such an evaluation (Spiva, Jarrell, &Baio, 2014).

Whitireia Nursing and Health lournal 23/2016 Pages 55-60 55

Brent Dondiff

There exists no specific timeline of the in­ troduction of editorial peer review (Burnham, 1990). However, the first medical periodical pub­ lished in America and recorded in the examined literature was the Medical Repository, established in 1797 in New York (Davis, 1870). In addition, Kronick (1990) reported that over 300 years ago the Royal Society of London established a committee to review articles before publication. By the time that Davis presented his findings in 1870, it was acknowledged that there were faults such as ‘articles defective in style, and impover­ ished ideas; cases so imperfectly reported as to be of no value’ in a number of the extant profession­ al periodicals of the time (Davis, 18 7 0, p. 416).

Editorial peer review is external third-party reviewing, but who is a peer? Are experts, who have continual access and up-to-date awareness of their subject likely to view and value informa­ tion in a manuscript in the same way as a general reader with less expert knowledge? Would they dismiss some content as being irrelevant to them that may be quite interesting and informative for the general readership? It would seem that experts are certainly more critical in relation to what is acceptable (Justice, Berlin, Fletcher, Fletcher, & Goodman, 1994). Through whose eyes should the assessment of the manuscript be undertaken — expert or the wider journal reader- ship? And what is the best point in the process of publication for the manuscript to be reviewed? There are two clear stages in relation to the pro­ cess of journal publication: pre-publication and post-publication (Schuklenk, 2015).

PRE-PUBLICATION The job of a peer reviewer in relation to article manuscripts is that of a consultant to the jour­ nal editor (Kassirer & Campion, 1994) however, editorial peer review — although widely used — has not been comprehensively examined as a process, and its immediate and ongoing effects are inconclusive (Jefferson, Alderson, Wager, & Davidoff, 2002). However, there seems to be no viable alternative. Kravitz, Feldman, Kravitz, and Feldman (2015) liken peer review to Winston Churchill’s view of democracy: ‘it is the worst

56

form of scientific quality assurance except for all the others that have been tried’ (p. 1717). The questions that should be on the mind of a manu­ script assessor or reviewer should be in relation to the manuscript in its present form - is this readable, factual, ethical and likely to be of inter­ est to the readers? Readability and comprehensi­ bility are key factors. Peer review as a process is ineffective when editors or reviewers are unable to fully understand the content of the submit­ ted manuscript (Manchikanti, Kaye, Boswell, & Hirsch, 2015), and improving the readability of articles will eventually improve the circulation of a journal (Roberts, Fletcher, & Fletcher, 1994).

POST-PUBLICATION This is perhaps the best peer review of all as there are no limits on who can make comment. Letters to the editor in many journals have comments from readers about the impact of articles in the publication. Interestingly, when articles are bor­ rowed from one publication and republished in another, it could be considered a form of peer review inasmuch as by the time of republication the article has been through another round of scrutiny by peers and has been deemed appropri­ ate (Burnham, 1990).

HOW IMPORTANT IS PEER REVIEW? How important, in the wider scheme of things, is editorial peer review? In relation to scholarly ar­ ticles, Smith (2010) suggests that an examination of any sample would reveal that many are never cited and most seem to lose relevance within a few years; thus, very few journal articles will have any real continuing importance. If material loses its relevance, then does it warrant such a degree of attention prior to publication? Perhaps edito­ rial peer review is related more to the prestige of the particular journal and the public face of the profession or discipline, than ensuring that the information presented is interesting, innovative or thought-provoking.

Bornmann (2011) suggests the peer-review process, rather than being specifically scientific, involves social judgement. It may be the social aspect of peer review that leads to a significant

Whitireia Nursing and Health Journal 23/2016 Pages 5 5 -6 0

The P e e r-R e v ie w Process in S ch o la rly W r it in g

dominance of negative comments (Bakanic, Mcphail, & Simon, 1989); however, negative review comments are not ubiquitous - at least within nursing journals (Shattell, Chinn, Thomas, & Cowling, 2010).

The negative tenor of reviewer comments can sometimes be quite disheartening for a manu­ script writer. When a manuscript is presented to a journal, if it is considered the best effort of the writer, then negative criticism could bring frus­ tration and resentment and cause them to aban­ don the project. Where a writer does abandon a project for lack of constructive criticism and guidance, the profession loses the chance to be­ come aware of the particular information or ideas that the writer was intending to impart. One con­ clusion that can be drawn is that the negativity of some reviews is encouraged by the anonymity of the peer review process. However, the traditional anonymity of peer review is not the only way in which quality peer review can be undertaken.

Removing strict anonymity will allow the writer to know who has reviewed the manu­ script and the reviewer to know who wrote the manuscript. It has been suggested that this open reviewing may lead to fewer people making themselves available to review manuscripts (van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Black, & Smith, 1999). It coulci also be problematic where a reviewer has a previous connection with the writer, either nega­ tive or positive, and fails to disclose this. A prior connection may lead to some form of transfer­ ence where the reviewer treats the manuscript according to their particular feelings about the writer.

PEER REVIEW AS A D E VELO PM EN T TOOL FOR W R ITER S One innovative possibility is for a journal to adopt the philosophy that manuscript reviews should be seen as an opportunity to further develop the writers skills and knowledge and enhance their work. Instead of focusing on iden­ tifying what does not meet accepted standards, reviewers should provide the writer with the benefit of their experience and wisdom and offer guidance around how to raise the quality of the manuscript. Chittum and Bryant (2014) suggest

W h itire ia N u rs in g a n d H e a lth Jo u rn a l 2 3 /2 0 1 6 Pages 5 5 - 6 0

that graduate students should develop the skills needed for peer review and be involved as initial reviewers for peer reviewed journals. This would enable students to be aware of the rigour needed for academic publication and allow them to view a range of different writing styles in order to un­ derstand what is good and bad about these differ­ ent styles in relation to professional publication.

When a subject being written about is narrow in focus, it may be that the author has the best idea of who would be most appropriate to review the content o f the manuscript. Another alterna­ tive to the traditional blind reviewing is offering the author the option of choosing from a list of reviewers providing their services to a particular journal, if they feel that particular reviewer has greater understanding of or expertise in the sub­ ject matter of the manuscript.

Koop and Poschl (2006) present an interest­ ing two-stage approach that has been adopted by one particular online journal, which is that, fol­ lowing screening, manuscripts are made available online as discussion papers for public comment over an eight-week period. During this time, designated reviewers provide comments in addi­ tion to other readers providing their own input. After the eight-week period, the more traditional review process takes place. Making the manu­ script available for wider comment will provide reviewers and the writer with a good indication of interest in the eventual published article. Any commentary from peers, such as during the discussion-paper stage, is still peer review even though it is not refereed (Mahoney, 1985).

Literary conventions and academic writing differ between disciplines, and people who un­ dertake peer reviews for journals need to have a good working knowledge, not only of the accept­ able style of writing, but also of the referencing etiquette for that particular discipline.

Academic nursing in New Zealand has adopt­ ed the American Psychological Association (APA) style of writing and referencing.

U N D E R S TA N D IN G SCHOLARLY W R IT IN G One of the most contentious issues of manuscript peer review is understanding what constitutes

5 7

Brent Dondiff

scholarly writing. While, in general, there is global agreement on the acceptable use of gram­ mar and spelling, there appears to be some disa­ greement around the acceptable use of personal pronouns in scholarly writing. Lee (2014) indi­ cates that within the APA style, at least, the use of personal pronouns in the context of ownership of opinions or ideas by the writer is totally appro­ priate. Hyland (2002) suggests that the tendency towards third-person expressions began with the hard sciences and engineering and reflects those disciplines’ preference for joint authorship.

Within many disciplines in the social scienc­ es, the researcher/writer can sometimes become embedded in the theatre of the research — such as when the researcher/writer adopts the role of participant-observer, or when they are using an action research methodology. In these situations, the use of third-person identity in manuscripts can sometimes create discord within the manu­ script. The same is applicable in nursing, where the nurse, nursing care and the environment in which the interaction with client/patient occurs are central components of the nursing paradigm. Reducing the interpersonal dynamic of nursing to neutral impersonal prose creates the risk that the richness of the nursing context can be lost (Hamill, 1999). Adopting a first-person identity in academic writing can create a forceful voice with which to present arguments and concepts (Hyland, 2002). This is something that editorial boards of nursing journals need to consider pro­ viding instructions to their peer reviewers.

THE CONTINUAL EVOLUTION OF PEER REVIEW While scholarly and academic editorial peer re­ view has been around for at least 300 years, it is something that has been continually evolving and will continue to do so in order to reflect the contemporary understanding of appropriate con­ tent and presentation required for publication of manuscripts. Of note, the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Jour­ nal facilitate an International Congress on Peer Review amd Biomedical Publication, with the next one due in 2017.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN A MANUSCRIPT REVIEW: Quality of the science: research design, execution, presentation of findings, analysis and conclusions. Specifically in relation to research, an assessment of the particular contribution the research makes to the knowledge base of the profession would need to be undertaken.

Content: is the subject matter of potential interest to journal readership, does it presents information in an informative manner, is it chal­ lenging or thought-provoking? Does it meet the discipline’s standards of ethics and professional­ ism?

General style and presentation: does it meet the particular requirements of the accepted writing style for the discipline? When there are simple technical errors, they can be highlighted as a learning opportunity for the writer, but if the manuscript is going to be reformatted for a journal, then these changes should be addressed by the editor. However, where there are gross de­ viations from the accepted style then the writer should be given guidance to allow them to revise the manuscript.

CONCLUSION Editorial peer review is not perfect but it is the best method at the moment with which manu­ script submissions can be assessed on their suit­ ability to their discipline’s publication standards and knowledge base. Perhaps it is time to consider some flexibility in relation to what is understood to be scholarly writing in nursing so that, where appropriate, the use of personal pronouns and idea ownership are accepted.

DISCLAIMER The ideas and opinions expressed by the author in this piece of writing are not intended to imply that they are (or are not) in any way part of the Waikato District Health Board philosophy or op­ erational procedures they are solely expressions from the author based on literature research and consolidation, collective experience and wisdom.

58 Whitireia Nursing and Health Journal 23/2016 Pages 5 5-6 0

The Peer-Review Process in Scholarly W riting

REFERENCES

A ltm a n , L. ( 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e In g e lf in g e r ru le , e m b a rg o e s ,

a n d jo u rn a l p e e r re v ie w - p a r t 1. The Lancet,

3 4 7 ( 9 0 1 2 ) , 1 3 8 2 - 1 3 8 6 . d o i: 1 0 .1 0 1 6 /S O 1 4 0 -

6 7 3 6 ( 9 6 ) 9 1 0 1 6 - 8

B akan ic .V ., M cP h ail, C ., & S im o n , R. J. ( 1 9 8 9 ) .

M ix ed m essag es : R efe ree s ’ c o m m e n ts o n th e

m a n u s c r ip ts th e y rev iew . The Sociological Quarterly,

3 0 ( 4 ) , 6 3 9 - 6 5 4 .

B o r im a n n , L. ( 2 0 1 1 ) . S c ien tific p e e r review . Annual

Review of Information Science and Technology, 4 5 ( 1 ) ,

1 9 7 - 2 4 5 . d o i: 1 0 .1 0 0 2 / 'a r i s .2 0 1 1 .1 4 4 0 4 5 0 1 1 2

B u rn h a m , J. C. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e e v o lu tio n o f e d ito r ia l

p e e r review . JAMA: Journal of the American Medical

Association, 2 6 3 (1 0 ) , 1 3 2 3 - 1 3 2 9 .

C a m p a n a r io , J. M . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . P e e r re v ie w fo r

jo u rn a ls as i t s ta n d s to d a y - P a rt 1.

Science Communication, 1 9 (3 ) , 1 8 1 - 2 1 1 .

o i: 10.1 1 7 7 / 1 0 7 5 5 4 7 0 9 8 0 1 9 0 0 3 0 0 2

C h ittu m , J. R ., & B ry an t, L. H . ( 2 0 1 4 ) . R ev iew in g

to le a rn : G ra d u a te s tu d e n t p a r t ic ip a tio n in th e

p ro fe s s io n a l p e e r - re v ie w p ro c e ss to im p ro v e

a c a d e m ic w r i t in g sk ills. International Journal of Teaching

and Learning in Higher Education, 2 6 ( 3 ) , 4 7 3 ^ - 8 4 .

D avis. N . S. ( 1 8 7 0 ) . A d d ress o n th e h is to ry , c o n d i­

t io n , a n d m e a n s o f im p ro v e m e n t o f m e d ic a l

jo u rn a lis m in th e U n ite d S tates. Chicago Medical

Examiner, 1 1 ,4 1 3 ^ 4 2 4 .

H a m i i , C. ( 1 9 9 9 ) . A cad e m ic essay w r i t i n g in th e firs t

p e rs o n : A g u id e fo r u n d e rg ra d u a te s . Nursing standard

(Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987), 13 ( 4 4 ) ,

38^ - 0 .

H y lan d , K. ( 2 0 0 2 ) . O p tio n s o f id e n t i ty in

a c a d e m ic w rit in g . ELT Journal, 5 6 ( 4 ) , 3 5 1 - 3 5 8 .

d o i: 1 0 .1 0 9 3 /e l t j / 5 6 .4 .3 5 1

Jeffe rso n ,T ., A ld e rso n , P .,W ager, E ., 8c D avidoff, E

( 2 0 0 2 ) . E ffects o f e d ito r ia l p e e r rev iew : A

sy ste m a tic rev iew . JAMA: Journal of the American

MrdicalAssociation, 2 8 7 (2 1 ) , 2 7 8 4 —2 7 8 6 .

Justice , A. C., B erlin , J. A ., F le tcher, S. W „ F letcher, R. H „

& G o o d m a n , S. N . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . D o re a d e rs a n d p e e r

re v ie w ers ag ree o n m a n u s c r ip t q u a lity ? (T h e

S e c o n d In te rn a tio n a ] C o n g re ss o n P e e r R ev iew

i n B io m e d ica l P u b lic a tio n ) . JAMA: The Journal of the

American Medical Association, 272 ( 2 ) , 1 1 7 - 1 9 9 .

W hitire ia Nursing and H ealth Journal 23/2016 Pages 55-60

K assire r, J. P., 8; C a m p io n , E. W . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . P e e r review .

C ru d e a n d u n d e rs tu d ie d , b u t in d is p e n sa b le . JAMA:

Journal of American Medical Association, 2 7 2 (2 ) , 9 6 - 9 7 .

K o o p ,T ., 8c P o s c h l , U . ( 2 0 0 6 ) . A n o p e n , tw o -s tag e

p e e r - re v ie w jo u rn a l. Nature. d o i : 1 0 .1 0 3 8 /

n a tu re 0 4 9 8 8

K rav itz , R ., F e ld m a n , M „ K rav itz , R . L ., 8c F e ld m a n ,

M . D. ( 2 0 1 5 ) . R u m o rs o f th e d e m is e o f p e e r

re v ie w a re p re m a tu re . JGIM: Journal of General Internal

Medicine, 3 0 ( 1 2 ) , 1 7 1 7 - 1 7 2 1 .

K ro n ic k , D .A . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . P e e r re v ie w in 1 8 th -c e n tu ry

sc ie n tif ic jo u rn a lis m . JAMA: Journal of American

Medical Association, 263 ( 1 0 ) , 1 3 2 1 - 1 3 2 2 .

L ee, C. ( 2 0 1 4 , M ay 2 2 ) . “ M e, m e , m e ” : H o w to talk

a b o u t y o u rs e lf in a n APA style p a p er , [w eb lo g

m e ssag e] R e triev ed f r o m h t tp : / / b lo g .a p a s ty le .

o r g /a p a s ty le / 2 0 1 4 / 0 5 /m e - m e - m e .h tm l

M ah o n ey , M . J. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . O p e n e x c h a n g e a n d

e p is te m ic p ro g re s s . American Psychologist, 4 0 ( 1 ) ,

2 9 - 3 9 .

M a n c h ik a n ti , L ., K aye, A ., B o sw ell, M ., 8c H irs c h , J.

( 2 0 1 5 ) . M ed ica l jo u rn a l p e e r re v ie w : P ro ce ss

a n d b ia s. Pain Physician, 1 8 ( 1 ) , E 1 -E 1 4 .

P r ice , B. ( 2 0 1 4 ) . Im p ro v in g y o u r jo u rn a l a r tic le

u s in g fe e d b a c k f r o m p e e r rev iew . Nursing Standard

(Royal College Of Nursing (Greet Britain): 1987), 2 9 ( 4 ) ,

4 3 - 5 0 . d o i: 10 .7 7 4 8 / n s . 2 9 .4 . 4 3 .e 9 101

R o b e r ts , J. C „ F le tc h e r , R. H „ 8c F le tc h e r , S. W .

( 1 9 9 4 ) . E ffects o f p e e r re v ie w a n d e d i t in g o n

th e re a d ab ility o f a r t ic le s p u b l is h e d in A n n a ls o f

In te rn a l M e d ic in e . JAMA: Journal of American Medical

Association, 2 7 2 ( 2 ) , 119 .

S c h u k le n k , U . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . O n p e e r rev iew . Bioethics,

2 9 ( 2 ) , i i - i h . d o i: 1 0 .1 1 1 l / b i o e .1 2 1 5 8

S h a tte ll, M . M ., C h in n , P . ,T h o m a s , S. P., 8c C o w lin g ,

W . R. ( 2 0 1 0 ) . A u th o rs ’ a n d e d i to r s ’ p e rs p e c tiv e s

o n p e e r re v ie w q u a li ty in th re e s c h o la r ly n u r s in g

jo u rn a ls . Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42 ( 1 ) , 5 8 - 6 5 .

S m ith , R . ( 2 0 1 0 ) . C lass ical p e e r rev iew : A n e m p ty

g u n . Breast Cancer Research, 1 2 (S u p p 4 ) , S I 3 .

Spiva, A. L ., J a r re ll , A. N ., 8c B aio, A. P. ( 2 0 1 4 ) .

T h e p o w e r o f n u r s in g p e e r rev iew . JONA:The

Journal of Nursing Administration, 4 4 ( 1 1 ) , 5 8 6 - 5 9 0 .

d o i: 1 0 .1 0 9 7 /n n a ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130

5 9

B r e n t D o n d i f f

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999), Effect of open peer review on quality o f reviews and on reviewers’ recom­ mendations: A randomised trial. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 318(7175), doi:23. 10.1136/ bmj.313.7056.514

B R E N T D O N C L I F F RN, M N (hons), FCNA (N Z), FNZCM HN is a Mental Health Nurse with over 3 0 years’

experience working in healthcare. He currently works as a Mental Health Triage Nurse with the Whikato District

Health Board. He is a Fellow of the College of Nurses Aotearoa (NZ) and of the New Zealand College of Mental

Health Nurses.

6 0 W hitire ia Nursing and H ealth Journal 2 3 /2 0 1 6 Pages 5 5 - 6 0

Copyright of Whitireia Nursing & Health Journal is the property of Whitireia Nursing Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.