Guidelines for HIV Nursing
Peer review in scientific journals refers to the process for evaluating an article by one or more people of similar competence and working in the same specialist field as the author of the work. The peer review process subjects written work to the scrutiny of other experts, ensuring that it is of the necessary academic quality and suitable for publication. It assists the editorial board to decide if the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with some alterations, or rejected.
The process helps to maintain standards of quality and credibility for scientific journals and acts as a form of self-regulation by members of a profession.
Peer review requires experts who are able to perform a reasonably impartial review. In order to maintain impartiality and to reduce the risk of conflict of interest peer reviewers will remain anonymous. This ‘single-blind review’ is common for nursing journals.
Your own identity will remain anonymous and will not be linked to the published article.
- Acknowledge receipt of the article by return and confirm you are able to provide a review within the allocated time frame in order for the Editorial Team to meet the copy date.
- Skim read the article as soon as possible after receiving the request to review. If you have concerns about your expertise for reviewing the content or about the timescale, please advise the Editor promptly.
- You might need to review background articles to refresh your memory on a topic, so it’s best to do your own preparation before providing feedback to the author.
- Resist the temptation to re-write the text as you may have written it! A clear simple writing style, including the use of first person, is preferred for HIV Nursing.
- Please do not add comments and text to the original copy as this may identify you. Please send your feedback as a separate document to Editorial Team at Mediscript.
- We expect the process to take around one hour. However, you may feel the need to do some preparatory background reading on the topic prior to reviewing the article.
- A review of around 300 words should provide the Editor with sufficient detail.
For HIV Nursing we require the following from our Peer Reviewers
- A brief overview /comment on relevance and value of the article and potential benefit to our readership.
- Is there sufficient factual accuracy and up-to-date evidence included? Ideas and research already published on the topic should be appropriately cited in the article. The author should relate his or her discovery or argument to what has been previously published on the topic.
- Are major pieces of recent and relevant work mentioned? Draw the attention of the author to any significant omissions.
- Look out for obvious plagiarism and highlight this for the Editorial Team
- Are arguments or points sufficiently in-depth, or too scientifically orientated? [N.B. It is essential to consider the readership].
- How applicable is the content is to nursing care? For example, does it discuss implementation/ transition of from theory to practice?
- How ‘readable’ is the article? Provide feedback on structure, visual appeal, and layout. A clear, well-written article flows logically from one thought to the next. Is the purpose of the article clear and do the arguments are developed in an orderly fashion? Is this the case? If not then make suggestions.
Providing your feedback
- Please use the Peer Review report form provided below.
- Give positive feedback first, and try to be constructive. Authors are likely to be more receptive to this.
- Please limit the extent of your feedback to the items given above (*)
- HIV Nursing will provide you with feedback on your first reviews if you wish.
- The Editor will review your feedback. He/she may see fit to summarise your feedback prior to sending it to the author concerned.
- You should not expect to review the article for a second time in most cases, unless the author asks for further clarification, or at the Editor’s discretion.