Friday, March 23, 2012: 2 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Presentation Type: Poster Session
Objectives: Peer reviewers are essential contributors to quality of publications in scientific journals, yet little is known about challenges and benefits of being a peer reviewer for a dental hygiene journal. The purpose of this survey research was to examine peer review behaviors, ethical and professional concerns, and challenges encountered during the peer review process. Methods: A nursing survey with established reliability and validity was modified to reflect the Dental Hygiene profession. IRB approval was obtained and the survey was pilot-tested for face validity. A sample of all reviewers (n=90) for a refereed dental hygiene journal were invited to participate in an electronic survey (SurveyMonkey®). Eighty three response items measured 6 constructs: level of involvement in reviewing; relationships with editorial staff; preparation for the role of reviewer; experiences and challenges; ethical conflicts; and general reviewer experiences. Reponses were collected electronically and reported in aggregate. Descriptive statistics were utilized. Results: Seventy percent responded (n=63). The majority (92%) have a masters or doctoral degree. Most (67%) are currently involved in research. One to three reviews are completed by 78% annually. Reasons for turning down invitations to review include timing of deadline (63.8%), competing work priorities (46.6%) and lack of content expertise (44.8%). Most (68.6%) desire access to comments by other reviewers and 76% want feedback about their review. The majority (84.8%) are satisfied/very satisfied with communications with the editor/editorial staff. Most have encountered ethical conflicts with submitted papers, including insufficient protection of animal/human subjects, duplicate publication, plagiarism and legitimacy or honesty in representation of data. All report a high value of this professional opportunity. Conclusions: Reviewers for dental hygiene journals encounter challenges, but value serving in this role and desire to improve.
Keywords: Journal Reviewers
<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract