Reviewers' Guidelines
To reflect the changes in Journal of Advanced Nursing over the last few years, and to acknowledge the increasing numbers of reviewers working on behalf of the journal, this information sheet has been put together to help reviewers continue their excellent work on JAN and on behalf of the wider nursing community.
INTERNATIONAL ARENA
The Aims and Scope of the journal have been revised in order to recognize the diversity and internationalism of nursing, and to be as inclusive as possible within the limits of acceptable scholarship. Manuscripts are also handled on a global basis, and papers submitted can be sent to reviewers anywhere in the world. The criterion that determines the selection of reviewers for an individual paper (normally 2 - 3 per manuscript) is their areas of expertise, whether in the clinical subject, or in the theory or methods used, or because of recent experience with publishing a similar paper (for example, an integrative literature review, or a concept analysis). We decide how to allocate papers on the basis of the information sent to us when we register new reviewers or from the reviewer's publishing record with us. Papers are reviewed as appropriate by one of JAN's pool of health services research statisticians.
WHAT THE EDITORS OF JAN REQUEST
What we expect in general from reviewers:
- We look to you for expert advice on the suitability of a paper for publication in JAN, including its relationship to the Aims & Scope, its importance and interest, and the acceptability of its scholarship;
- If there are parts of a paper that you do not feel competent to comment on, please tell us;
- Be timely. If you are unable to review a paper please let us know immediately, preferably by E-mail. If possible, tell us about a colleague with similar expertise to carry out the review;
- Be aware of JAN's international audience in over 80 countries;
- Maintain confidentiality;
- Be constructive in your review. Type your specific comments to the author in addition to filling out the reviewer's form;
- Be honest and courteous. Reviewers sometimes disagree. In the final analysis the editors will weigh carefully all of the reviewers' comments and make a final decision. The main aim of peer review is to improve the standards of what we publish.
Subject reviewers are asked to comment on: clarity, originality, relevance/accessibility, and the evidence base. Questions are asked on the standard of reporting if papers are based on empirical research. Any potential copyright issues are raised. The reviewer is then asked to give an overall assessment of the paper under consideration.
Statistical reviewers are asked to comment on: study design, conduct of the study, analysis and presentation, and then provide an overall statistical assessment of the paper.
What we do not expect from reviewers:
- Correction of grammatical and spelling mistakes;
- Checking the matching of references between text and list, and correcting incorrectly cited references.
For more information on reviewing, please consult the editor’s note
|
