<p>Raise your hand if you've ever ignored, deleted or lost track of an invitation from an editor to review a manuscript. Peer review is both a process and a role that doesn't always work well for anyone involved. Editors hunt endlessly for scholars to invite to do peer review. Authors hope for thoughtful and understanding peer reviewers whenever they upload a manuscript for consideration by a journal. Peer reviewers? Well, they are often long-serving and somewhat beleaguered by invitations as word of their service spreads across journals. But those who could serve as reviewers often seem to be in hiding, perplexing editors and indirectly frustrating authors.</p><p>Despite complex logistics, peer review is a favourite topic of mine. In critical ways, the quality of our science—any science—rests on high-quality peer review. Peer reviewers deserve far more recognition than they receive. The Associate Editors here at the <i>International Journal of Older People Nursing</i> (<i>IJOPN</i>) and I enjoy honouring our most outstanding peer reviewers with our annual awards. There, peer reviewers rank right alongside authors and editorial board members, enjoying our accolades. Our annual editorial announcing those awards is truly a special one to celebrate each year. Watch for the editorial about our 2023 awards later this year!</p><p>Peer reviewers are different from authors, editorial board members and editors in one important way. Peer reviewers are the only group who are anonymous. They remain anonymous until we single them out for recognition and, even then, what they reviewed is known only to them and to us as editors. Although some journals do now include the names of reviewers who wish to be known when publishing the manuscript they have reviewed. Their role in disseminating high-quality science must remain invisible to both authors and readers in a journal like this one that employs double-blind review. So called double- and single-blind—or anonymised—reviews offer distinct advantages over open peer reviews. Both reviewer and author are not known to each other in the doubly anonymised version and the reviewer is not known to the author, though the author is typically known to the reviewer, in the single version. Anonymising the review process helps limit implicit bias, supporting better inclusion in publishing and providing editors, who cannot be blinded, with valuable insights and critical evaluation of any manuscript they deem ready for peer review.</p><p>Beyond our editorials announcing our annual awards, peer review has been my focus in several other editorials. I've written about the relationship of peer reviewers to authors and editors (Kagan <span>2019</span>), giving credit for peer review (Kagan <span>2022</span>), and offered specific tips to reviewers as well as authors (Kagan <span>2024a</span>, <span>2024b</span>). In all these editorials, I aim to improve the peer review process here at <i>IJOPN</i> by strengthening peer reviewers' sk
{"title":"The How and Why of Peer Review","authors":"Sarah H. Kagan","doi":"10.1111/opn.12625","DOIUrl":"10.1111/opn.12625","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Raise your hand if you've ever ignored, deleted or lost track of an invitation from an editor to review a manuscript. Peer review is both a process and a role that doesn't always work well for anyone involved. Editors hunt endlessly for scholars to invite to do peer review. Authors hope for thoughtful and understanding peer reviewers whenever they upload a manuscript for consideration by a journal. Peer reviewers? Well, they are often long-serving and somewhat beleaguered by invitations as word of their service spreads across journals. But those who could serve as reviewers often seem to be in hiding, perplexing editors and indirectly frustrating authors.</p><p>Despite complex logistics, peer review is a favourite topic of mine. In critical ways, the quality of our science—any science—rests on high-quality peer review. Peer reviewers deserve far more recognition than they receive. The Associate Editors here at the <i>International Journal of Older People Nursing</i> (<i>IJOPN</i>) and I enjoy honouring our most outstanding peer reviewers with our annual awards. There, peer reviewers rank right alongside authors and editorial board members, enjoying our accolades. Our annual editorial announcing those awards is truly a special one to celebrate each year. Watch for the editorial about our 2023 awards later this year!</p><p>Peer reviewers are different from authors, editorial board members and editors in one important way. Peer reviewers are the only group who are anonymous. They remain anonymous until we single them out for recognition and, even then, what they reviewed is known only to them and to us as editors. Although some journals do now include the names of reviewers who wish to be known when publishing the manuscript they have reviewed. Their role in disseminating high-quality science must remain invisible to both authors and readers in a journal like this one that employs double-blind review. So called double- and single-blind—or anonymised—reviews offer distinct advantages over open peer reviews. Both reviewer and author are not known to each other in the doubly anonymised version and the reviewer is not known to the author, though the author is typically known to the reviewer, in the single version. Anonymising the review process helps limit implicit bias, supporting better inclusion in publishing and providing editors, who cannot be blinded, with valuable insights and critical evaluation of any manuscript they deem ready for peer review.</p><p>Beyond our editorials announcing our annual awards, peer review has been my focus in several other editorials. I've written about the relationship of peer reviewers to authors and editors (Kagan <span>2019</span>), giving credit for peer review (Kagan <span>2022</span>), and offered specific tips to reviewers as well as authors (Kagan <span>2024a</span>, <span>2024b</span>). In all these editorials, I aim to improve the peer review process here at <i>IJOPN</i> by strengthening peer reviewers' sk","PeriodicalId":48651,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Older People Nursing","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/opn.12625","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141460138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}