Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.

A growing body of research challenges the inter-rater reliability of peer reviewers and the value of reviewer training or blinding in improving the quality of manuscript reviews, but double-blinded peer review of papers remains a relatively unexamined standard for nursing journals. Using data from a larger emailed survey, the views of 88 nurse editors on peer review were analyzed using content analysis. The majority of nurse editors reported that blinding was important in peer review, to maintain objectivity and avoid negative personal or professional consequences. The minority who saw potential benefits of open review valued increased transparency in the reviewing and editorial decision-making process. An excellent review was viewed as containing specific instructions on how the deficits in a manuscript might be remedied. Common weaknesses of reviews were lack of specificity and inappropriate focus. Virtually all editors provided some form of preparation or guidance to reviewers. Peer review has an impact on nurses' workload and careers, and training in writing and critique should be included in nursing education.