JDNA Guidelines for Reviewers
3rd Draft: Guidelines for JDNA Reviewers
I. Reviewing articles for JDNA should be guided by the following questions:
A. Will dermatology nurses and nurse practitioners need or want to know the information?
B. Is it relevant to their practice?
C. Will it enhance their knowledge?
D. Will it improve care to patients?
Busy professionals need to be able to see at a glance if the article is relevant to them.
II. The primary aims of peer review for the JDNA are to:
A. Determine if the submitted manuscript merits publication in the JDNA
B. Provide recommendations to both the journal’s editor and manuscript author/s on how the
manuscript might be improved prior to publication.
III. Checklist for reviewers
A. Determine the purpose for which the editor has chosen you to review the manuscript. Is it for:
1. Content expert
2. Research methodology expert
3. Practice expert
If you are not clear why you have been chosen or for what reason you are requested to do the review,
please clarify with the editor. If you do not feel qualified to perform the review, please notify the editor.
TEMPLATES FOR REVIEWERS (Adapted with permission from:Christenbery,2010, p.17)
IV. For quantitative research, consider the following manuscript criteria: :
A. Significance and originality of the research question or problem:
1. Has/have the problem/s previously been addressed by other researchers?
2. Does the manuscript convey an important topic (i.e. how frequent and how severe is the problem?
How will patients benefit?)
3. Does the research problem statement identify the critical issues and present a context for the study?
4. Have prior studies failed to sufficiently address the problem/s?
5. To answer these questions, has the author presented a concise yet critical review of the literature?
B. Theoretical Foundations
1. Is there complete articulation of a theory or conceptual framework (often a visual theoretical or
conceptual model if needed)?
2. Is there congruence between the theoretical or conceptual framework and the problem?
C. Methodological principles
1. Could the reader use the methods section as a guide to replicate the study?
2. How clear is the study design?
3. Is there an adequate description of the setting and subjects?
4. Has the author provided rationale for the methodological choices (i.e., design, recruitment strategies,
data analyses?)?
5. Are the operational definitions of the variables clear?
D. Reporting the findings
1. Are the study’s findings clearly articulated?
2. Do the use of tables and figures summarize the data and make the data more understandable?
3. Does the author comment on the study’s findings in light of previous studies?
4. Does the author explain unexpected results?
5. Has the author noted the study’s limitations?
6. Are the findings linked to the theoretical or conceptual framework for the study?
E. Relevance to dermatology nursing/dermatology advanced practice nursing
1. Is it clear that the study adds to nursing’s body of knowledge?
2. Can the findings be generalized beyond the study sample? If so, to what groups?
3. Does the author discuss how the study’s findings will improve patient care?
F. Implications for future studies
1. Are there appropriate recommendations for future studies?
G. Ethical considerations
1. Is there discussion regarding the rights of the study’s participants?
V. For Qualitative research, consider the following manuscript criteria:
A. Purpose
1. Has the author identified the phenomenon of interest and stated why a qualitative approach was
used?
B. Qualitative focus
1. Is the qualitative focus identified (e.g., phenomenology, ethnographic, grounded theory, historical,
case study) in the title or introduction, and does the manuscript reflect an appropriate example of the
identified focus?
C. Method section
1. Is the method used to collect data appropriate for the identified qualitative focus? for example, indepth interviews of persons with renal failure for the purpose of understanding the “lived experience”
of receiving at home peritoneal dialysis would be appropriate for a phenomenological focus.
D. Sampling and data collection
1. Is the type of sampling method identified (e.g., snowballing, purposive, convenience) and clearly
described?
2. Was the type of data collection procedure identified (e.g., unstructured or semistructured interviews,
oral histories, focus groups) and clearly described?
3. What types of observational and field notes were used?
4. Was data saturation discussed?
E. Analysis
1. Were appropriate analytic procedures clearly described for the qualitative tradition (e.g.,
phenomenology, ethnographic, grounded theory) that was used?
F. Scientific rigor
1. Are steps taken to ensure:
a.Credibility (e.g., researchers credentials)
b.Confirmability (e.g., bracketing of researcher bias)
c.Dependability (e.g., detailed description of research methods)
G. Relevance to dermatology nursing/advanced practice nursing
1. Is transferability of findings to other settings discussed?
2. Are the relevance of the study’s findings discussed in relation to dermatology nursing/advanced
practice nursing?
H. Implications for future studies
1. Are suggestions for future studies provided?
I. Ethical considerations
1. Is there evidence that the rights of participants have been protected?
VI. For Non-research, clinically focused manuscripts consider the above (if applicable) as well as the
following criteria:
A. Is the clinical content appropriate to the audience (dermatology nurses/NPs)?
B. Does the manuscript coincide with the aims of the JDNA?
C. Are the majority of references from primary sources? Are evidence-based references published within
the last 3 years? Do they adequately support the theoretical rationale and evidence-based findings?
D. If you are a content expert, do the references contain authors you are familiar with who are experts
in the field?
E. Is the manuscript a synthesis of the current evidence-based literature or merely a summary of the
literature?
F. Will the manuscript help clinicians understand the importance of a new intervention or the relevance
of solving problems with new and innovative solutions?
G. Is the clinical content accurate, safe, appropriate and useful? Is it clear and to the point?
H. Are recommendations for practice change stated precisely and clearly? Are the recommendations
supported by evidence-based findings?
I. Is the manuscript well organized, clear, with a logical flow? Are there clear headings and sub-headings
to aid the reader in understanding the content?
J. Are tables and figures appropriate and well designed? Do they enhance what is in the narrative or
merely repeat it?
VII. The current version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association should be
used as the reviewer’s guide for assessing the writing, preparation, citations, tables, figures and
references of a manuscript under review. Remember, however, that the author also needs to comply
with the requirements ofEditorial Manager, the website where JDNA manuscripts are submitted.
VIII.After reviewing the manuscript the reviewer will need to submit a recommendation to the
editor. The editor makes the final decision on what to do with the manuscript. Recommendations of
the reviewer can be as follows:
A. Accept the manuscript
B. Reject the manuscript
C. Rejection with invitation to revise and resubmit
1. Refer to APA 6th, p. 227 for a discussion of these options.
2. Reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest,
such as the manuscript of a colleague, close personal friend or recent student.
3. Reviewers have an ethical responsibility not to use any information they gain from a manuscript in
their own work and to keep the manuscript confidential unless permission to discuss it is granted by the
editor.
IX. Please see the Editorial Manager website for instructions on using the site to submit the review. It
contains a step by step guide on using the software and a reviewer tutorial on using the website to
submit a review.
References
Christenbery, T.L. (2010). Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses. Journal of the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 23(2011),15-22.
Garmel, G.M.(2010). Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. The Permanente Journal. Spring
2010,14 (1), 32-40.
American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.).Washington, D.C.