Developmental Direction for Review System of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing

대한간호학회지 논문 심사의 발전 방향

  • Published : 2007.04.30

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal. Methods: Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006. Results: The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other Journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form. Conclusions: The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.

Keywords

References

  1. Algase, D. L. (2006). Reviewing peer review. Research and theory for nursing practice: An International Journal, 20(3), 179-181 https://doi.org/10.1891/rtnp.20.3.179
  2. Bachand, R. G., & Sawallis, P. P. (2003). Accuracy in the identification of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process across disciplines. The Serials Librarian, 45, 39-59 https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v45n02_04
  3. Brockopp, D. Y., & Hastings-Tolsma, M. T. (2003). Fundamentals of nursing research. Third edition. Jones and Bartlett Publishers
  4. Freda, M. C., & Kearney. M. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices. J Nurs Scholarsh, 37, 87-94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00006.x
  5. Journal of Advanced Nursing. (n.d.) Aims and scope. Retrieved 10/20106 from http://www.journalofadvancednursing.com/jps.asp?page=aims
  6. Kearney, M. H., & Freda, M. C. (2005). Nurse editors' views on the peer review process. RINA, 28, 444-452
  7. Kim, J. J. (1999). Criteria of journal review. Bulletin of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 36(2), 48-49
  8. Nursing Research. (2006). Information for authors. Nur Res, 55(1),
  9. Weil, J. (2004). Peer review: An essential step in the publishing process. J Genetic Counseling, 13(3), 183-187 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOGC.0000028252.93942.40